MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐reported oral health, oral hygiene habits and dental service utilization among pregnant women in United Arab Emirates

2011· article· en· W1530804112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raghad Hashim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dental Hygiene · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOral hygieneOral healthPregnancyQuarter (Canadian coin)DentistryFamily medicineHygieneObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this study was to describe self-reported oral health, oral hygiene habits and frequency of visits to a dentist among pregnant women visiting maternity hospitals in the United Arab Emirates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, with anonymous structured questionnaires distributed to 800 pregnant women who were chosen at random from attendants of three maternity and child health centres from various geographical areas of UAE, during January-March 2010. RESULTS: The response rate was 93.7% (n = 750). Less than quarter of the participated pregnant women were in their first trimester. Almost a quarter (23.5%) of the women believed that they had periodontal problem currently, while 46.3% reported having carious teeth. More than 44% reported having dental pain, and about 40% women felt that her oral health was poor. About 60% reported having heard about the possible connection between pregnancy and the oral health. About 94% of the women were brushing their teeth at least once a day. More than half of the women (58.3%) visited the dentist during their most recent pregnancy, mostly for dental pain. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of the pregnant women in this study had oral health problems; however, more than 40% of those women had not visited a dentist during their pregnancy, and the majority of those utilized dental services when they had dental pain only. To provide better oral health care, more knowledge needs to be made available to the pregnant women and the medical community.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations79
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Dental HygieneSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207