Parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on the <scp>M</scp>anitoba Dental Association's Free First Visit program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Free First Visit (FFV) program was implemented in 2010 to promote early preventive dental visits for children <36 months of age in Manitoba, Canada. The purpose was to understand parents' and caregivers' perspectives on the program. METHODS: Three focus groups with 21 participants were conducted in Winnipeg, Canada using an interview guide in this qualitative study. RESULTS: Most participants were aware of the FFV program and the appropriate age for a child's first visit. Almost all agreed with the recommendation to see a dentist by one year of age. Some reported that general dentists advised them to bring their child after three years of age. Participants appreciated that the program was free, and some noted that the program made them aware of the appropriate age for a first visit. About half of the participants had taken their child for a FFV. Reasons for not taking their child for a FFV included: nothing wrong with their child's teeth, they believed there was still time as their child was not three years old, they had government insurance, child's temperament, and feelings of apathy. There were mixed opinions regarding whether the program was helping those who needed it the most. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants liked the FFV program and believed that it should continue. Parents would benefit from further education and encouragement to seek oral care for their child by age one. Some general dentists may need further training and skills to meet the recommendations for first dental visits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".