IT’S NOT JUST A TOOTH: A POSTER CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ORAL HEALTH AT SICKKIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of Canadian children have had at least one cavity, and rates are increasing. Cavities represent a chronic condition that causes local pain, inflammation, infection, and tooth loss. A multi-disciplinary team collaborated on a quality improvement initiative to increase knowledge and awareness around good dental health practices. Specifically, we sought to educate individuals by developing posters about recommended dental health practices in the first few years of life. OBJECTIVES 1. To develop posters promoting good oral health practices using three simple messages 2. To explore parental and health care provider knowledge around oral health in young kids DESIGN/METHODS: We developed three posters with the following key messages adapted from the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement titled: “Oral Health Care for Children - A Call for Action”. Surveys were administered to health care providers (HCPs) and parents. The survey asked HCPs about dental health practices they observed in families admitted to hospital. Surveys directed at parents explored their awareness, knowledge, and application of good dental health practices towards their own children. We also asked parents how interested they were in learning more about the topic and what sources would be best (e.g. health care providers, pamphlets, websites etc.) RESULTS: 129 surveys were collected: 90 from HCPs and 39 from parents. The majority of individuals recognized dental health as in important child health issue. 90% of HCPs felt that assessment of dental health should be incorporated into hospital work flows. HCPs observed moderate adherence to the practices described in our posters. In contrast, the majority of parents reported better adherence than what the HCPs observed (figure). Generally, parents were knowledgeable and aware of good dental health practices (figure) but cited several barriers to this. Our surveys indicate that the posters were clear, facilitated learning, and well received. Lastly, most participants were eager to learn more about good dental health practices and HCPs represented the most trusted source for information. CONCLUSION: Dental health practices varied between what HCPs observed and what parents reported. Given the high rates of cavities in Canada, further education for HCPs and parents will be important. Some HCPs and parents reported not being able to follow some of the recommendations due to their child’s underlying condition (e.g. higher caloric demands in children with cardiac conditions). Nonetheless, the majority of individuals surveyed noticed the posters around the hospital and learned something new about good dental health practices in young 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".