Salutogenesis in oral health research in preschool children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral health research in children has focused both on identifying the risk factors for dental caries and on the impact the disease has on children's life. AIM: Identifying studies that used the salutogenic theory to investigate positive aspects to promote a healthy condition in preschool children. DESIGN: A literature scoping review was conducted to answer the question: 'What has been produced in scientific literature about children's oral health with a salutogenic theoretical reference?' The checklist preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was applied. The research was conducted on the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with no language, design, country or date restrictions. Three independent reviewers selected the studies to be included in the research, extracted data, and assessed the studies' contribution to the review. RESULTS: Among the 38 studies retained, 10 were included, those were published between 2009 and 2018: five in Brazil, two in the United States of America, and one in Canada, China and India, respectively. All articles were published in English language. Nine studies investigated the relation between the parents'/caretakers' sense of coherence and aspects related to the children's oral health condition. One study investigated health factors among the parents of caries-free children. CONCLUSION: Salutogenic orientation must be included in oral health research, so that salutary and risk factors may coexist, contributing to a new perspective for oral health promotion among 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 | 0.032 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".