MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family impact of child oral and oro‐facial conditions

2002· article· en· W2003440225 on OpenAlexaff
David Locker, Aleksandra Jokovic, Marlene Stephens, David J. Kenny, Bryan Tompson, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScale (ratio)Discriminant validityCeiling effectQuality of life (healthcare)Construct validityOral healthClinical psychologyFamily medicinePsychometricsInternal consistencyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the Family Impact Scale, a measure of the family impact of child oral and oro-facial disorders. This formed one component of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Instrument. METHODS: The scale was developed using a process described by Guyatt et al. (1987) and Juniper et al. (1996). An item pool was developed using a review of existing child health status and family impact questionnaires, interviews with 41 parents-caregivers of children with paedodontic, orthodontic and oro-facial conditions and discussions with dental specialists. The resulting pool of 21 items was used in an item impact study in which 93 parents-caregivers provided data on the frequency and importance of these items. The 14 items identified most frequently or rated the most important were selected for the final questionnaire. The discriminant and construct validity and internal consistency reliability of this 14-item scale were assessed in a study of 266 parents-caregivers from the three clinical groups. Seventy-nine of these participants completed a second copy of the questionnaire to facilitate assessment of test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Family Impact Scale scores ranged from 0 to 33, indicating that the measure was sensitive to variations in family impact. Floor effects were minimal with only 10.2% of subjects having a score of zero and there were no ceiling effects, that is, subjects with maximum scores. Almost three-quarters of parents-caregivers reported some family impact 'sometimes' or 'often/everyday' over the previous 3 months. Impact on parental or family activities of this frequency was reported by 53.0%, impact on parental emotions by 44.0%, conflict in the family by 31.6% and financial difficulties by 31.2%. The measure and its component items were reasonably good at discriminating between the three clinical groups included in the study and showed good construct validity. It had excellent internal consistency reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 and was reproducible for parent-caregivers who reported that their child's condition was stable (ICC = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides some data to suggest that child oral and oro-facial conditions have a pervasive impact on the family. The Family Impact Scale had good technical properties. Its evaluative properties need to be tested in longitudinal studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations298
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity Dentistry And Oral EpidemiologySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207