The impact of community workshops on improving early childhood oral health knowledge.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community workshops designed to equip participants with early childhood oral health (ECOH) knowledge and early childhood caries (ECC) prevention. METHODS: Convenience sample of individuals working with infants and preschool children attending an ECOH training workshop completed a questionnaire before the workshop. One month later, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire. A P-value </=.05 denoted significance. RESULTS: One hundred eight participants from southern Manitoba, Canada, completed the initial survey, while 67% completed the postworkshop questionnaire. Initially, many were unfamiliar with the recommended age of a first dental visit, assessing caries-risk, and identifying early stages of decay. Following the workshop, there was a 16% increase in the proportion of correct answers and a significant improvement in the number of correct choices (P<.01). Some questions showing considerable improvement included: when children should first visit the dentist (P<.001); mother having active decay placing their infant at high risk for caries (P<.001); and age until caregivers should supervise tooth-brushing (P<.001). Self-reported data suggests participants changed behaviors as a result of what they learned. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity-building workshops increased oral health knowledge and self-reported behaviors. This provides support that nondental professionals can effectively provide oral health education.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".