Dental Disease Outcomes Following a 2-Year Oral Health Promotion Program for Australian Aboriginal Children and Their Families: A 2-Arm Parallel, Single-blind, Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental disease has far-reaching impacts on child health and wellbeing. We worked with Aboriginal Australian communities to develop a multifaceted oral health promotion initiative to reduce children's experience of dental disease at age 2 years. METHODS: This was a single-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited from health service providers across South Australia. Women pregnant with an Aboriginal child were eligible. The intervention comprised: (1) provision of dental care to mothers during pregnancy; (2) application of fluoride varnish to teeth of children at ages 6, 12 and 18 months; (3) motivational interviewing delivered in conjunction with; (4) anticipatory guidance. The primary outcome was untreated dental decay as assessed by the number of teeth with cavitated and non-cavitated carious lesions (mean dt) at child age 24 months. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principles. The RCT was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12611000111976. FINDINGS: Women (n = 448) were recruited from February 2011 to May 2012, resulting in 223 children in the treatment group and 225 in the control. Mean dt at age two years was 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65) for the intervention group and 0.89 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92) for the control group (mean difference - 0.27 (95% CI - 0.31, - 0.22)). INTERPRETATION: A culturally-appropriate intervention at four time-points from pregnancy through to 18-months resulted in improvements in the oral health of Aboriginal children. Further consultation with Aboriginal communities is essential for understanding how to best sustain these oral health improvements for young Aboriginal children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".