Changes in parent‐assessed oral health‐related quality of life among young children following dental treatment under general anaesthetic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the nature and magnitude of changes in oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among children having dental treatment under general anaesthetic (GA) and to examine the evaluative properties of the Child Oral Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaire (COHQOL). METHODS: Data from a consecutive clinical sample of the parents/caregivers of children receiving dental treatment under GA at Wellington and Kenepuru Hospitals were collected from parents using the Parental-Caregivers Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ) and the Family Impact Scale (FIS), which both form part of the COHQOL Questionnaire. The first questionnaire was completed before treatment or while the participant's child was undergoing treatment. The follow-up questionnaire was completed 1-4 weeks afterward. Treatment-associated changes in OHRQoL were determined by comparing baseline and follow-up data for the mean scores and the prevalence of impacts. The discriminative properties of the instrument were confirmed and then its evaluative properties were assessed (by examining its test-retest reliability, responsiveness and longitudinal construct validity). The minimally important difference was determined for the overall scale and subscales. RESULTS: Complete baseline and follow-up data were obtained for 202 and 130 participants, respectively (64.4% follow-up rate). The evaluative properties of the P-CPQ and FIS were acceptable. There were substantial and highly statistically significant reductions in mean P-CPQ and FIS scores after treatment, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large, depending on the subscale being examined. The minimally important difference was shown by almost two-thirds of the children treated. CONCLUSION: The provision of dental treatment under GA for young children with severe dental caries experience is associated with substantial and highly significant improvements in both their OHRQoL and in the impact on their families. The P-CPQ and the FIS show promise as evaluative measures for use in dental health services research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".