A study of the facilitating and hindering factors in the comprehension and use of information about children and toddlers' oral health for parents and caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research will analyze the social impact of Feliz, an oral health promotion program developed in the city of Birigui, in the state of Sao Paulo. This program engages dentistry students in educating primary caregivers on the proper oral hygiene practices for children between four months and seven years of age. The research focus is on understanding the participation of primary caregivers, mainly mothers, in this initiative. The design is impact evaluation (Rossi, Lips ey, & Freeman, 2004) using a qualitative descriptive approach (Creswell, 2013). The methods are individual interviews and focus groups with 40 to 70 parents and educators of children who attend local daycare centers (Centros de Educacao Infantil). Interviews will be conducted at the daycare centers. The goal is to learn more about what are the main benefits and barriers perceived by them while trying to apply what they have learned through the Sorriso Feliz initiative, in the home. Results will be analyzed qualitatively. The theoretical framework is the Population Health Promotion (PHP) mode l, developed by Health Canada (Hamilton & Bhatti, 1996). This three-dimensional model looks at the interaction between determinants of population health, levels of potential interventions, and major actions for health promotion (Hamilton & Bhatti, 1996). The expected outcome is the understa nding and outlining of factors that support or make it difficult for caregivers to routinely engage children in oral hygiene practices. Preliminary dissemination of findings will be at local level with presentations to professional and lay audiences. Future final dissemination of the results will include, but is not limited to, submission of abstracts for national and international conferences, and production of presentation materials for strategic audiences. This research can potentially inspire further investigations within the subject of oral health promotion strategies aimed at school-aged children, both in Canada and Brazil. This study has been approved by both Ryerson University's and UNESP's Ethics Boards. Descriptors: Oral Health; Children; Todler.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".