IT’S NOT JUST A TOOTH: A POSTER CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ORAL HEALTH AT SICKKIDS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The majority of Canadian children have had at least one cavity, and rates are increasing. Cavities represent a chronic condition that causes local pain, inflammation, infection, and tooth loss. A multi-disciplinary team collaborated on a quality improvement initiative to increase knowledge and awareness around good dental health practices. Specifically, we sought to educate individuals by developing posters about recommended dental health practices in the first few years of life. OBJECTIVES 1. To develop posters promoting good oral health practices using three simple messages 2. To explore parental and health care provider knowledge around oral health in young kids DESIGN/METHODS: We developed three posters with the following key messages adapted from the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement titled: “Oral Health Care for Children - A Call for Action”. Surveys were administered to health care providers (HCPs) and parents. The survey asked HCPs about dental health practices they observed in families admitted to hospital. Surveys directed at parents explored their awareness, knowledge, and application of good dental health practices towards their own children. We also asked parents how interested they were in learning more about the topic and what sources would be best (e.g. health care providers, pamphlets, websites etc.) RESULTS: 129 surveys were collected: 90 from HCPs and 39 from parents. The majority of individuals recognized dental health as in important child health issue. 90% of HCPs felt that assessment of dental health should be incorporated into hospital work flows. HCPs observed moderate adherence to the practices described in our posters. In contrast, the majority of parents reported better adherence than what the HCPs observed (figure). Generally, parents were knowledgeable and aware of good dental health practices (figure) but cited several barriers to this. Our surveys indicate that the posters were clear, facilitated learning, and well received. Lastly, most participants were eager to learn more about good dental health practices and HCPs represented the most trusted source for information. CONCLUSION: Dental health practices varied between what HCPs observed and what parents reported. Given the high rates of cavities in Canada, further education for HCPs and parents will be important. Some HCPs and parents reported not being able to follow some of the recommendations due to their child’s underlying condition (e.g. higher caloric demands in children with cardiac conditions). Nonetheless, the majority of individuals surveyed noticed the posters around the hospital and learned something new about good dental health practices in young children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».