A qualitative look at parents' experience of their child's dental general anaesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Caries relapse after treatment of early childhood caries (ECC) under general anaesthesia (GA) has been frequently reported. This research used a qualitative method of inquiry to explore parents' experience of their child's treatment under GA, and their perception of the impact of this treatment on their child. METHODS: The participants were parents whose children had recently undergone dental rehabilitation under GA. Data was collected by semistructured, open-ended interviews scheduled at the postoperative appointment. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, checked and coded into a qualitative computer software program for analysis. Data collection and analysis were done simultaneously, and the interview guide was modified based on responses. RESULTS: Parents were troubled that their child needed a GA and appeared aware of the complications. While some parents felt 'guilty' and struggled to accept this mode of treatment for their child, others felt 'blameless', and were convinced that the GA was 'preferable' for their child and superior to conventional treatment. Nonetheless, all parents reported some levels of anxiety during the GA; they expressed their emotions with 'fear', 'worry' and 'concern'. After the GA, improvement was reported by most parents in their child's amount of dental pain, sleeping pattern, eating habits and acceptance of parental toothbrushing. The most common changes in their child's behaviour mentioned by parents were increased toothbrushing and decreased consumption of sugary foods. Several children who had had primary teeth extracted were distressed as a result of this 'loss'. CONCLUSION: The general anaesthetic experience was troubling in a variety of ways for both parents and children. However, an 'early' and positive outcome of the GA was a reported improvement in dental health practices. Parents were more positive about maintaining the health of primary teeth and now knew how to take care of their child's teeth. Future exploration is required to reveal if and how the GA experience will affect long-term preventive behaviours.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".