Caregiver knowledge and attitudes of preschool oral health and early childhood caries (ECC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prevention strategies are integral to improving the oral health for young Aboriginal children. For such to be effective, it is important to understand the social value that parents and caregivers ascribe to primary teeth. The purpose of this paper is to report caregiver knowledge and attitudes toward preschool oral health and early childhood caries (ECC) from 4 communities in Manitoba. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, including a retrospective interview with caregivers. METHODS: Children and their main caregivers served as the sample. Preschoolers underwent a comprehensive dental screening while caregivers completed a questionnaire that explored knowledge and attitudes toward preschool dental health. Caregiver responses were matched with findings from each child's examination. RESULTS: A majority agreed that primary teeth were important, that dental disease could lead to health problems and that a first dental visit should be made by age 1. Caregivers of children with ECC were more likely to believe that caries could not affect a child's health while those who believed primary teeth are important had children with significantly less decay. CONCLUSIONS: Most caregivers believed that primary teeth are important and correctly responded to inquiries about knowledge and attitudes toward oral health. Attitudes on the importance of baby teeth and bottle feeding after one year of age, the effect of rotten teeth on childhood health and night-time nursing emerged as variables most associated with the absence/presence of ECC and deft rates. Incorporating such questioning into caries risk assessments may be a useful means to determine a child's risk for ECC.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".