Factors facilitating dental practitioners' provision of infant-toddler dental homes in Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Dental Association and Canadian Dental Hygienists Association recommend that a child's first dental visit should occur no later than 1 year of age. However, this recommendation has not been strongly supported by the dental community. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing the provision of infant-toddler dental homes from providers' perspectives. Understanding facilitating factors is integral to developing strategies to improve infant-toddler oral health care. METHODS: This study employed a qualitative interpretive descriptive methodology, using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 13 dentists and dental hygienists who routinely provide dental homes for the infant-toddler cohort. The constant comparative method was used to support thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed factors that were both endogenous and exogenous to the practitioner. They were categorized into 4 interrelated themes: 1) practitioner; 2) practice; 3) profession; and 4) population. Together these 4 themes form a model of the 4 Ps that influence provision of infant-toddler dental homes. Common endogenous factors include the practitioner's comfort with young children and having clinical exposure to pediatric clients during dental education. Common exogenous factors include parental awareness and adequate insurance coverage for preventive procedures. Strategies to improve acceptance of infant-toddler dental homes include enhanced practitioner education and public awareness, consistent messaging from the dental community, as well as increased remuneration for preventive pediatric oral health care. CONCLUSION: Provision of infant-toddler dental homes is affected by multifaceted variables. Consequently, strategies to improve uptake must employ a multipronged approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".