MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161955380 · doi:10.82308/30951

Person-Centered Dental Care Through the People’s Lens – A Qualitative Descriptive Study

2023· dissertation· en· W7161955380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reenu Angeline Lysander Suthan Sam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchDescriptive researchBiopsychosocial modelDental carePopulationRelevance (law)PaternalismData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The biomedical paternalistic approach in dentistry has been progressively replaced by a more balanced approach known as Person-centered care. Unlike other professions, there are only a few dentistry-specific person-centered models, and most were developed by researchers and dental practitioners without the input of people. Because it is important to gain people's perspective, this study aimed to understand people's expectations and preferences for their dental encounters and contribute to developing person-centered care in dentistry.Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. It was based on one-on-one, in-depth semi-structured interviews with twelve South Asian immigrant women in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We adopted a sampling strategy that was ‘purposive’ and, more specifically, ‘homogenous sampling,’ as described, with the goal of understanding this population in-depth and obtaining information-rich cases pertaining to our research question. The interviews were conducted on Zoom and lasted for an average of 45 minutes. The interview guide was devised using Bedos et al. Q – list of “The Montreal-Toulouse Wheel of Patient’s Expectation for dental visits”, which is based on a biopsychosocial model of dental practice. These interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: The participants highlighted the relevance of the “The Montreal-Toulouse Wheel of Patient’s Expectation for dental visits,” which includes four core components (Be understood; respected; provide enough time; share powers), and three components related to the clinical process (be informed and consent; be comfortable; co-construct treatment plan). This said, the participants emphasized having enough time during clinical encounters and working as a team with the dentist. Finally, the participants added the importance of having a warm and friendly relationship with the dental team to make their dental visits comfortable.Conclusion: This study improves our understanding of what people may expect in a person-centered dental encounter and contributes to advancing person-centered care in dentistry. It could be useful to dentists and their teams interested in adopting person-centered approaches. In addition, we hope the findings will inform the public about their rights and what they could expect when consulting dental professionals

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.501
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.021 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→