Diversity Considerations for Promoting Early Childhood Oral Health: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Several groups in Manitoba, Canada, experience early childhood caries (ECC), including Aboriginal, immigrant, and refugee children and those from select rural regions. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the views of parents and caregivers from four cultural groups on early childhood oral health and ECC. Methods. A qualitative descriptive study design using focus groups recruited parents and caregivers from four cultural groups. Discussions were documented, audio-recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed for content based on themes. Results. Parents and caregivers identified several potential barriers to good oral health practice, including child's temperament, finances, and inability to control sugar intake. Both religion and genetics were found to influence perceptions of oral health. Misconceptions regarding breastfeeding and bottle use were present. One-on-one discussions, parental networks, and using laypeople from similar backgrounds were suggested methods to promote oral health. The immigrant and refugee participants placed emphasis on the use of visuals for those with language barriers while Hutterite participants suggested a health-education approach. Conclusions. These pilot study findings provide initial insight into the oral health-related knowledge and beliefs of these groups. This will help to inform planning of ECC prevention and research strategies, which can be tailored to specific populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".