Is the wait‐for‐patient‐to‐come approach suitable for <scp>A</scp>frican newcomers to <scp>A</scp>lberta, <scp>C</scp>anada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A qualitative study was conducted to identify psychosocial barriers to providing and obtaining preventive dental care for preschool children among African recent immigrants. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 48 mothers of 3- to 5-year-old children from Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Somali communities in Edmonton. Participants had lived in Canada for 5 years or less. Three debriefing interviews were conducted with the community health workers who facilitated the focus groups in participants' first languages. Data analysis consisted of assigning codes, grouping codes into existing or new categories of barriers, grouping identified categories into domains, and organizing categories and domains around a general perspective of psychosocial barriers to prevention of caries. RESULTS: Barriers to prevention of early childhood caries (ECC) were associated with home-based prevention, early detection, and access to professional care. Barriers to parental prevention were related to health beliefs, knowledge, oral health approach, and skills. Barriers to early detection included perceived role of caregivers and dentists, perceived identity of ECC, ways of detecting cavities, and parental self-efficacy. Access barriers were related to parental knowledge of preventive services, attitudes toward dentists and dental services, English skills, and external constraints concerned dental insurance, social support, time, and transportation. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive interventions should be aimed at assisting primary caregivers with providing and obtaining adequate dental care for their children through enhancing oral health literacy, developing new set of oral health-related skills, reducing environmental constraints, and strengthening their intention of obtaining professional preventive dental services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".