Parental acceptance toward behavior guidance techniques for pediatric dental visits: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The systematic review aimed to compare agreement with behavior guidance techniques (BGT) between parents of children with special health care needs (SHCN) and those non-SHCN. Methods A structured search of Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, Opengrey and Google Scholar was taken up to October 2020. Two authors selected studies independently, extracted the data, assessed the studies’ methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs scale and the Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results Forty-eight studies covering the parents’ agreement with BGT were included and 41 were retained for random-effects proportion meta-analysis. The methodological quality assessment varied from low to high. Among the parents of non-SHCN children, the agreement with BGT varied from 84.1% (95% CI: 75.8-90.9; p<0.001; I 2 93.3%) for tell-show-do to 25.7% (95% CI: 17.8-34.4; p<0.001; I 2 90.4%) for passive protective stabilization, without hand-over-mouth. Among the parents of children with SHCN, the acceptance of BGT varied from 89.1% (95% CI: 56.1-99.7; p<0.001; I 2 95.7%) for tell-show-do to 29.1% (95% CI: 11.8-50.0; p=0.001; I 2 84.8%) to general anesthesia. Conclusion There is very low certainty in evidence that both the parents of children SHCN and non-SHCN were more likely to agree with basic BGT and that they were less likely to agree with the advanced ones.
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 | 0.022 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".