ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
The Exclusivity of 'Vulnerable': Exploring How a Canadian Community Dental Clinic Defines and Describes Its Targeted Population.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAddressing inequitable oral health access is a global priority. In Canada, community dental clinics (CDCs) play a crucial role in this endeavour, yet limited resources necessitate strategically targeting communities for interventions. Various methods exist for defining communities and measuring outcomes, but how CDCs determine their target populations is under-researched. This study aimed to explore how decision-makers planning an inner-city CDC define the population they intend to serve.
methodsData was collected through key informant interviews, document analysis, and field observations. Purposive sampling was employed to select key informants and documents related to clinic planning and design. The researcher was immersed in the data throughout the study, which underwent inductive content analysis facilitated by NVivo software.
resultsAnalysis included semi-structured key informant interviews (n = 11), textual data from public sources and key informants (n = 9), and field observations totalling 275 hours over 1 year (2020-2021). Key informants agreed that the clinic served a "vulnerable" population, but definitions of "vulnerable" varied. Initial coding revealed two distinct patient groups with differing portrayals. Based on five patient characteristics Sossauer et al. (2019) described, one group was portrayed positively, while the other was depicted negatively.
conclusionsThis study underscores the necessity of establishing a shared understanding of "vulnerability" in interdisciplinary projects like the CDC examined here. Assumptions about community groups hold significant consequences, shaping resource allocation, programme implementation, and policy decisions. It is imperative to critically assess who is making these decisions, their conception of vulnerability, and the repercussions of these beliefs on affected communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.