Homebound seniors’ experiences with home-based oral healthcare services: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral health is vital to healthy aging, yet empiric studies reported persistent oral health care disparities among seniors. Home-based oral health care services have the potential to facilitate homebound seniors’ access to dental care. Objective: To explore experiences of the homebound seniors with the home-based oral healthcare pilot project in Montreal. Methods: A qualitative study with interpretive description methodology was conducted. Purposive sampling was used to recruit study participants who received home-based dental care via the pilot project. Data was collected using audio recorded, 45-60 minutes, virtual semi-structured interviews and continued until saturation was achieved. Qualitative data was analyzed using a thematic approach. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) for reporting qualitative studies were followed.Results: Eleven interviews (8 F and 3M, mean age: 69.5 years) were conducted and three themes emerged. These included: Oral health care hurdles faced by seniors, Appreciation for home-based oral healthcare services, and Enhancing Home-Based Oral Healthcare. Pain was a common problem among the elders. Participants appreciated the home-based oral healthcare services and reported a high level of satisfaction as it met their expectations. They provided useful recommendations for the future implementation and scale-up of home-based oral healthcare services.Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight the efficacy of home-based oral healthcare services from the perspectives of home-bound seniors. The positive patients’ experience indicates its clinical relevance and the importance of expanding such programs. The seniors’ recommendations have an important policy implication and provide guidance for scaling up these oral health care services
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".