Dietary practices among children with early childhood caries and the associated factors: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents play a vital role in their children's dietary habits. A comprehensive understanding of the perspectives of parents of children with early childhood caries (ECC) is required for prevention program planning. AIM: To describe the parental perspective of the dietary habits of children with ECC. DESIGN: In this descriptive qualitative study, the participants were parents of children with ECC receiving routine dental care. Data were collected through focus groups using an interview guide. Data were analyzed manually using the content analysis method. RESULTS: Five focus groups involving 27 participants were conducted. Two main categories emerged: cariogenic food literacy and factors that affect food choices. Most of the participants knew that sugary foods are responsible for tooth decay. Parents felt that children's snacking habits were influenced by multiple factors, such as family environment, peers, commercials on television or the Internet, and affordability of food. CONCLUSIONS: Parents are not able to translate their knowledge into action to modify their children's diet as they may lack self-efficacy and feel pressured by their children, the media and the environment in which they live. Motivational interviewing of parents and governmental and school policies to reduce sugary food consumption may be required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".