Impact of Digital Innovations on Health Literacy Applied to Patients with Special Needs: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MHealth strategies have been used in various health areas, and mobile apps have been used in the context of health self-management. They can be considered an adjuvant intervention in oral health literacy, mainly for people with special health needs. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the improvement of oral health literacy in patients with special needs when using digital platforms. A systematic literature review, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines, was the main research method employed in this study. A search was undertaken in PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, according to the relevant Mesh descriptors, their synonyms, and free terms (Entry Terms). Studies published between the years 2012 and 2023 were included. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies by completing the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale questionnaire. The analysis corpus comprised 5 articles among the 402 articles selected after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria (k = 0.97). The evidence from the considered articles is consensual regarding the effectiveness of using new technologies and innovations in promoting oral health literacy in patients with special health needs. The interventions were based on using the Illustration Reinforcement Communication System, inspired by the Picture Exchange Communication System, Nintendo® Wii™ TV, virtual reality, smartphones, with software applications to read messages sent, Audio Tactile Performance technique, and Art package. One study had a low-quality assessment, and four had a high quality. The evidence from the articles included in this systematic review is consistent regarding the effectiveness of using new technologies and innovations in promoting oral health literacy in patients with special health needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".