Indigenous community members' views on silver diamine fluoride to manage early childhood caries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Early childhood caries (ECC) continues to be the leading reason for pediatric dental surgery in Canada and is particularly prevalent among Indigenous children. Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) offers an alternative method to manage non-restoratively caries. It is important to determine Indigenous communities' views on and receptivity toward SDF. AIM: To understand Indigenous community members' views on pediatric dental surgery to treat ECC under general anesthesia (GA) and receptivity to SDF as an alternative to restorative surgery. METHODS: Focus groups and sharing circles congruent with an Indigenous ways of gathering information were conducted. Three interviewers engaged eight groups of First Nation and Metis communities in three rural Indigenous communities and ne metropolitan urban setting in Manitoba, Canada. Overall, 59 individuals participated. Open coding was guided by grounded theory and further analysis using Nvivo 12 software™. RESULTS: Participants mean age was 35.6 years, 88 percent (52 individuals) had a least one child, and 32 percent (19 individuals) were employed. Eight themes emerged, including respondents' fear of dental surgery under GA, fear of pain after dental surgery, parents' need for more information before accepting SDF treatment, and concern about the black staining of treated lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous parents' acceptance of SDF as a treatment option is contingent on having more information and assurance that treatment under GA can be avoided. Understanding Indigenous parents' views may ensure better acceptance of SDF as a minimally invasive treatment option to manage ECC. A cautious and informative approach to SDF implementation in Indigenous communities is recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".