Exploring the Feasibility and Acceptance of Delivering Oral Health Interventions in a Primary Care Diabetes Context in North East England: A Qualitative Two‐Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence base supporting a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and periodontitis is well-established and published guidance recommends inter-professional management. This two-case study describes the development and implementation of an evidence-based oral health intervention delivered in diabetes review consultations in NHS primary medical care in Northeast England. AIM: The intervention aim was to inform people with diabetes about the links between diabetes and periodontitis, and signpost them to a dental professional for assessment. METHODS: The study utilised focus groups in the design phase and a mixture of focus groups and interviews in the evaluation phase. RESULTS: Two research active primary care medical practices were recruited. The interventions were informed by their diabetes management protocols to reduce disruption. The interventions were piloted for 2 months, and staff and patient perceptions were evaluated. The findings from this study suggested that the oral health interventions were feasible and acceptable particularly for nurses and health care assistants when delivering diabetes education, but they caused disruption to the GPs review, which included complex medication reviews and referrals. The patients (n = 2) found the intervention to be acceptable and appropriate in the context of their diabetes review. CONCLUSION: Medical staff and patient evaluation data appear to suggest acceptance of the introduction of an oral health intervention into the diabetes review, but it is difficult to assess the impact of the intervention. Further research, such as a realist review, is needed to evaluate the outcomes and utility of an oral health intervention in the context of the medical management of diabetes in primary care.
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 | 0.038 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".