The perceptions of first nation participants in a community oral health initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Children's Oral Health Initiative (COHI) is a federally funded community-based preventive dental program for children and their caregivers living in geographically isolated Canadian Aboriginal communities. The goal of the program is to improve access to preventive dental services for children of 0-7 years of age. It utilises community health workers in collaboration with dental therapists to promote and deliver the program. Almost half of the province of Manitoba's (n=27) First Nations communities have implemented COHI since 2005. The objective of this investigation was to explore the opinions of COHI from the perspective of community members whose children had participated in the program. Purposeful selection identified caregivers of enrolled children for a semi-structured interview. The targeted caregivers had children who met at least one of the following criteria: (1) 0-2 years old; (2) 5-7 years old; (3) had two or more children either currently or formerly enrolled in COHI. Six open-ended questions guided the interview process. Content analysis was used to code transcripts and identify themes. One hundred and forty-one interviews were completed in 13 communities. Participants defined good oral health as the absence of dental cavities, which reflects a Western biomedical model of disease. The local, community-based nature of COHI was viewed as essential to its success in increasing access to preventive dental services and improving children and caregivers' oral health knowledge and behaviours. In conclusion, a local, community-based oral health prevention programme is perceived as having a beneficial effect on children and caregivers' oral health knowledge and behaviours. However, oral health preventive messages need to be further integrated into traditional Aboriginal holistic models of wellness.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".