The Relation Between Caregivers' Multiliterate Reading Habits and Their Children's Oral Health Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caregivers' oral health literacy (OHL) assessment results have been found to be related to their children's oral health status. A further aspect of this relationship may be the role of caregivers' reading habits. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to describe the relationship between caregivers' multimodal (digital and print) and multilingual (English and Chinese) reading habits, their OHL, and their child's oral health status in Hong Kong. METHODS: A random sample of 301 child-caregiver dyads was recruited from kindergartens in Hong Kong. Data included sociodemographic information and caregivers' self-reported digital print and reading habits across two languages (Chinese and English). Caregivers' OHL levels were assessed by two locally developed and validated oral health literacy assessment tasks: Hong Kong Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry-30 (HKREALD-30) and the Hong Kong Oral Health Literacy Assessment Task for Pediatric Dentistry (HKOHLAT-P). Children's oral health status was assessed using two measures: dental caries experience (number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth) and oral hygiene status (Visible Plaque Index). RESULTS: Bivariate variations revealed significant differences in mean OHL scores between caregivers with different reading habits (P<.01). Correlations revealed significant associations between caregivers' practices of reading multimodal (print/digital) and multilingual (English/Chinese) texts, their literacy levels, and their children's oral health status (P<.01). Adjusting for sociodemographics and all other reading habits in the regression analysis, the caregivers' habit of reading digital and print texts was significantly retained in the final model. Regression analysis revealed significant associations between caregivers' reading habits (digital Chinese) and their OHL word recognition scores: OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.10-3.65, P=.027. Significant associations were also evident for their OHL comprehension scores (digital Chinese: OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.30-4.20, P=.004; print Chinese: OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.40-4.30, P=.001). However, no significant associations were found between caregivers' reading habits and child's oral health status (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers' habits of reading print and digital Chinese texts are significantly associated with their OHL scores. Their reading habits, however, do not affect their children's oral health status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".