Addressing early preventive oral health care among young children: a pilot evaluation of the Baby Oral Health Program (bOHP) among dental professionals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many communities lack dental professionals with the knowledge and behavioral skills needed to deliver care to young children (<3 years). This study aimed to examine the impact of an intervention (the Baby Oral Health Program (bHOP)) on dental providers' knowledge, values, confidence and practice behaviors regarding preventive oral health care to young children (<3 years), and assess the feasibility and satisfaction of the bOHP among dental providers in a Canadian community setting. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was employed, with 24 intervention (4.5 hour workshop, and booster session 1 month following) and 18 control group participants completing pre- and post-surveys. RESULTS: A significant group interaction effect emerged for value and knowledge (p<0.05), with participants in the intervention group demonstrating significantly higher baseline to post-intervention change scores. No significant group differences were found for confidence and practice behaviors (p>0.05). Mean scores for perceived workshop usefulness and perceived influence on practice were high. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that bOHP is effective in increasing dental professionals' knowledge and values about the importance of preventive oral health among young children. However, consideration to provider's stage of readiness to change and more systems-based approaches to enhancing early oral health interventions should be assessed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".