Global situation of oral health coverage toward universal health coverage: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the status of Universal Health Coverage in oral/dental services from the perspectives of population, service, and cost coverage, as well as other aspects of financing, using a scoping review. Method: A scoping review of published articles from 2000 to 2024 was conducted, utilizing scientific databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ProQuest, along with other sources such as grey literature and Google Scholar. Result: The initial search identified 58,778 articles, with 28 articles included in the final analysis after screening and full-text review. The included countries were Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the United States. The condition of oral health coverage was reported by factors such as dental health expenditure, coverage type, service and cost coverage, coverage of age/specific groups, and cost sharing. Conclusion: Dental services are mainly provided by the private sector, do not have adequate public coverage and are mainly financed by out-of-pocket payments. However, Dental health expenditure and coverage vary significantly across countries, influenced by diverse healthcare systems, economic conditions, and public health priorities. Countries like Sweden and the United Kingdom demonstrate strong public funding commitments, providing comprehensive coverage for preventive and basic services. In contrast, countries like Australia and the United States rely more on private insurance, leading to higher out-of-pocket costs for individuals. Addressing high out-of-pocket payments and ensuring equitable access to oral health care remain key challenges.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".