A conceptual model of parental behavior change following a child's dental general anesthesia procedure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate parents' challenges to long-term maintenance of healthy behaviors following their child's dental general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Twenty-six in-depth interviews were conducted with parents of children younger than 6 years of age who had dental treatment under GA. The interviews were scheduled at various time periods following the surgery. Compared were the responses of: (1) "relapse" families, whose child had new cavities at the 6-month recall; and (2) "no relapse" families, who were caries-free at recoil. A grounded theory approach to data analysis was used. RESULTS: "Relapse" parents: (1) valued baby teeth differently; (2) perceived their child to be less susceptible to new cavities; and (3) expressed lower self-efficacy for controlling their child's oral health compared to "no relapse" parents. They also appeared to be: (1) in earlier stages of change; (2) less receptive to advice from others, including professionals; and (3) more permissive regarding their child's desires. "Relapse" parents did not seem to have any immediate plans to change their "home-care" behaviors. CONCLUSION: GA did not appear to affect long-term preventive behaviors for all parents. Readiness to change seemed to be an important predictor of whether parents adopted and maintained preventive behaviors to improve their child's oral health.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".