ReviewJournal of public health dentistry2026
Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model.
Review in Journal of public health dentistry, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite decades of national and global strategies, persistent inequities in oral health outcomes, access, and service provision remain. Existing frameworks often fail to integrate clinical and behavioral factors with social, cultural, and political determinants. This study aimed to map and evaluate oral health frameworks using Hodges' Health Career-Care Domains-Model (HCM), a meta-framework that spans clinical, behavioral, sociological, and political domains. The goal was to identify conceptual gaps and opportunities for greater integration.
methodsA structured scoping review was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EBSCO, and search engine Google Scholar (1995-2025) to identify oral health-related conceptual frameworks. Frameworks were eligible if they addressed oral health determinants, behaviors, policies, or interventions. Two reviewers independently screened records and analyzed full-text articles. Frameworks were categorized by theoretical orientation and mapped against the four HCM domains to identify patterns of emphasis or omission.
resultsOf 226 identified records, 21 frameworks met inclusion criteria. These were classified into three thematic groups: balanced (addressing all domains), clinically led (focused on clinical/behavioral aspects), and policy/public health-focused (emphasizing sociological/political factors). Seven cross cutting themes emerged, including health promotion, systems integration, social justice, and cultural safety. While many frameworks promoted equity and policy reform, few offered implementation guidance or had been empirically validated.
conclusionsHCM proved useful for systematically comparing frameworks and revealed consistent underrepresentation of political and structural domains. It offers a practical tool for oral health professionals, educators, and policymakers developing integrated oral health models that align with equity, sustainability, and universal health coverage goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.