A qualitative evaluation of a Local Professional Network programme "Baby Teeth DO Matter".
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to use a qualitative approach to examine the perceptions of dentists who led a health promotion programme entitled "Baby Teeth DO Matter". BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a variety of participants in a health promotional programme facilitated by a shadow Local Professional Network. These were then recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were line numbered and subjected to thematic analysis to develop a coding frame. Overarching themes were developed from the coded transcripts by organising them into clusters based on the similarity of their meaning and checked against the coded extracts and the raw data. CLINICAL SETTING: General Dental Practice. PARTICIPANTS: General Dental Practitioners. INTERVENTIONS: A Greater Manchester-wide prevention programme entitled "Baby teeth DO Matter". MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine the perceptions of involved clinicians and whether "clinically owned and clinically led" services add value. RESULTS: Eight codes were generated: "Success of the project", "Down-stream to up-stream", "Importance of clinically led and clinically owned", "Keeping the approach simple", "Importance of networking", "Importance of Dental Public Health", "Importance of task and finish" and "Threats to the future of the Local Professional Network". These were organised into three over-arching themes. CONCLUSIONS: "Clinically Led and Clinically Owned" projects appear to empower local practitioners and add value. They encourage community-facing practitioners, build capacity and develop personal skills;--all in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Ottawa Charter. Distributed leadership was seen to be effective and Dental Public Health input, "Task and Finishing", resources and clarity of communication were all considered to be of critical importance.
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 | 0.032 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".