The emergency department as a ‘last resort’: why parents seek care for their child's nontraumatic dental problems in the emergency room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, there has been an increasing trend in the number of families using emergency departments (EDs) for treating their children's nontraumatic dental problems. We do not know why families use the ED in this way; to date, little research has addressed parents' decisions. The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons that lead parents to select the ED over a dental clinic for their child's nontraumatic dental problem. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with parents of children under age 10 who sought care for nontraumatic dental problems in an ED of a pediatric hospital. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis using Grembowski's dental care process model as a sensitizing construct. RESULTS: Fifteen parents were recruited (ten mothers and five fathers). Three salient themes were identified: (i) parental beliefs and socioeconomic challenges which contributed to their care seeking, (ii) barriers parents faced in finding oral healthcare options for their children in their communities (e.g., poor access to care and poor quality of care), and (iii) parent's high satisfaction with the care provided through the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The ED was families' last resort; parents took their child to the ED because of the lack of other options in their communities rather than a belief that the ED was the best choice for dental care. The current pattern of ED use resulted in stress for these parents and repercussions for the children (e.g., pain, longer waiting, and increased complications); further, it has been shown in the literature to be an economic strain on the health system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".