DENTISTS' PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANITOBA DENTAL ASSOCIATION'S FREE FIRST VISIT PROGRAM.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Manitoba Dental Association implemented the Free First Visit (FFV) program to provide access to dental screenings for children under 3 years of age and promote the concept of the age 1 dental visit. In this article, we report on dentists' views of the program. METHODS: This qualitative study included 3 focus groups held in Winnipeg, Canada. An interview guide was developed to structure discussions. RESULTS: Thirty dentists participated. They were extremely supportive of the FFV program and its continuation. Promoting early visits and providing parents with anticipatory guidance were some reasons dentists participated. The most common reason for not participating was that dentists were already providing free dental care for children. Dentists viewed the goals of the program as increasing public awareness of the importance of early dental visits, establishing dental homes, educating parents, identifying early signs of caries and increasing children's level of comfort in the dental clinic. They indicated that the FFV program prompted some parents to take their children earlier than they might have otherwise. They said that most FFVs were provided to families who were already part of their practice. According to participating dentists, most parents were unaware of the FFV program and did not know about the age 1 visit recommendation. Dentists recommended that the FFV program concentrate on promoting the first visit by age 1 message with the free component as a secondary message. Participants recommended increasing general dentists' involvement in the program as most FFVs are currently provided by pediatric dentists. CONCLUSIONS: Most dentists participating in this study were supportive of the FFV program and advocated its continuation in Manitoba.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".