Adaptation of child oral health education leaflets for Arabic migrants in Australia: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of Arabic-speaking mothers views on the usefulness of existing oral health education leaflets aimed at young children and also to record their views on the tailored versions of these leaflets. METHODS: This qualitative study was nested within a large ongoing birth cohort study in South Western Sydney, Australia. Arabic-speaking mothers (n = 19) with young children were purposively selected and approached for a semi-structured interview. Two original English leaflets giving advice on young children's oral health were sent to mother's prior to the interview. On the day of interview, mothers were given simplified-English and Arabic versions of both the leaflets and were asked to compare the three versions. Interviews were audio-recorded, subsequently transcribed verbatim and analysed by thematic analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from Human Research Ethics Committees of the former Sydney South West Area Health Service, University of Sydney and Western Sydney University. RESULTS: Mothers reported that simplified English together with the Arabic version of the leaflets were useful sources of information. Although many mothers favoured the simplified version over original English leaflets, the majority favoured the leaflets in Arabic. Ideally, a "dual Arabic - simplified English leaflet" was preferred. The understanding of key health messages was optimised through a simple layout and visual images. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to tailor oral health education leaflets for Arabic-speaking migrants. Producers of dental leaflets should also consider a "dual Arabic - simplified English leaflet" to improve oral health knowledge of Arabic-speaking migrants. The use of simple layout and pictures assists Arabic-speaking migrants to understand the content of dental leaflets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".