Early childhood oral health promotion for First Nations and Métis communities and caregivers in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early childhood caries is a public health concern, and the considerable burden exhibited by Indigenous children highlights the oral health inequities across populations in Canada. Barriers include lack of access to oral health care and lack of culturally appropriate oral health promotion. The purpose of this study was to determine where and how First Nations and Métis parents, caregivers and community members learn about caring for young children's oral health, and what ideas and suggestions they have on how to disseminate information and promote early childhood oral health (ECOH) in Indigenous communities. METHODS: Sharing circles and focus groups engaged eight groups of purposively sampled participants (n = 59) in four communities in Manitoba. A grounded theory approach guided thematic analysis of audiorecorded and transcribed data. RESULTS: Participants said that they learned about oral health from parents, caregivers and friends, primary care providers, prenatal programs, schools and online. Some used traditional medicines. Participants recommended sharing culturally appropriate information through community and prenatal programs and workshops; schools and day care centres; posters, mailed pamphlets and phone communication (calls and text messages) to parents and caregivers, and via social media. Distributing enticing and interactive oral hygiene products that appeal to children was recommended as a way to encourage good oral hygiene. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based oral health information and resources tailored to First Nations and Métis communities could, if strategically provided, reach more families and shift the current trajectory for ECOH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 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".