Children's fear and behavior in private pediatric dentistry practices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study assessed the proportion of children with dental fear, the proportion of children with negative behavior and the relationship of children's dental fear and children's negative behavior in private pediatric dentistry practices in western Washington state. METHODS: A total of 421 children seen in 21 private pediatric dentistry practices in western Washington State participated. The average age of the children was 6.8+/-2.8 years (range=0.8-12.8 years). An average of 21 children were studied per practice (range=7-25 children). Dental fear was measured using the parents' version of the Dental Subscale of the Child Fear Survey Schedule (CFS). Behavior of the child during treatment was rated using the Frankl scale. Additional data were collected regarding the child's previous experiences and parental fear. RESULTS: The children's average item score on the 15-item CFS was 2+/-0.7, corresponding to a total score of 29.6 out of 75, where 75 indicates maximum fear. The proportion of children with dental fear, defined as an average item score of > or = 2.5 (corresponding to a total score of > or = 38), was 20% (85/421, 95% CI=16.3, 24%). The proportion of children who displayed negative behavior during treatment was 21% (95% CI=17.5, 24%). A prevalence ratio of 2.4 was calculated to describe the relationship between children's behavior during treatment and children's dental fear prior to dental treatment. Multivariate logistical regression analysis showed children with dental fear, younger children, and children exposed to treatment involving local anesthesia have higher odds of displaying negative behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of children with dental fear in private pediatric dentistry practices was 20%, and the proportion of children with negative behavior during treatment was 21%. Children with negative behavior had greater odds of having dental fear and children with dental fear had greater odds of having negative behavior. Screening for dental fear may allow pediatric dentists to prepare children more adequately for positive treatment experiences.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".