Inequities in Unmet Oral Care Needs after a Swedish Subsidization Reform: An Intersectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The main strategy to achieve equal provision of oral care in Sweden has been to offer partial subsidies for the adult population. However, their effects on unmet oral care needs (UOCNs) have not been extensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: This study used an intersectionality framework to examine 1) the overall frequency of UOCNs, 2) single-indicator inequities, and 3) intersectional inequities in total UOCNs and financial-related UOCNs (FUOCNs) in Sweden before and after implementation of a partial subsidization reform in 2008. METHODS: Data from 12 national surveys conducted over 2004 to 2018 were divided into 3 periods: prereform (2004 to 2007), early postreform (2008 to 2011), and late postreform (2012 to 2018). The analytic sample consisted of 98,177 respondents aged 24 to 84 y. Changes in the prevalence of UOCNs were estimated by inferential statistics. Single-indicator and intersectional inequities were examined by intersectional analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy, across 48 strata defined by gender, age, educational level, income, and immigrant status. RESULTS: The prevalence of total UOCNs and FUOCNs decreased significantly early after the reform, followed by a slight rebound. Relative inequities increased by education, income, and immigrant status after the reform and decreased for age. The discriminatory accuracy for both types of UOCNs was moderate and improved marginally but significantly with the inclusion of the intersectional strata. Most intersectional strata showed greater FUOCN inequities after the reform. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expected, larger inequities in FUOCNs were identified in most intersectional strata after the reform. The moderate discriminatory accuracy suggested that Sweden could benefit from future strategies to foster equity that are universal but proportionately more intense among the intersectional strata with greater inequities (proportionate universalism).Knowledge Transference Statement:This analysis highlighted the benefit of adopting the principle of proportionate universalism as a strategy to reduce unmet oral care needs in Sweden. This would mean implementing universal strategies and specific support measures for the most vulnerable social groups as a future oral care policy change in Sweden.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".