First Nations and Metis peoples’ access and equity challenges with early childhood oral health: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inequities in early childhood oral health are evident amongst Indigenous peoples and communities in Manitoba, Canada. Early childhood caries (ECC) is decay in primary dentition in children under 6 years of age. A severe form of the disease occurs at a higher rate in Indigenous populations compared to the general population. ECC has been strongly associated with social determinants of health. METHODS: Focus groups and sharing circles were conducted with four First Nations and Metis communities in urban and rural communities in Manitoba. There were eight groups in total of purposively sampled participants (n = 59). A grounded theory approach guided thematic analysis of audio recorded and transcribed data. RESULTS: Indigenous participants experienced challenges similar to those found in the general population, such as encouraging and motivating parents and caregivers to establish regular oral hygiene routines for their children. However other challenges reported, disproportionately affect Indigenous communities. These include poor access to dental care, specifically no dental offices within 1 h driving radius and not having transportation to get there. Not having evidence-based oral health information to support good oral hygiene practices, preventing parents from making the best choices of oral hygiene products and oral health behaviours for their children. Poverty and food insecurity resulting in poor nutritional choices and leading to ECC. For example, feeding children sugary foods and beverages because those are more readily avialble than healthy options. Confusing or difficult encounters with dental professionals, highlighted as a factor that can erode trust, reduce compliance and impact continued attendance at dental offices. CONCLUSION: Closing existing early childhood oral health gaps for First Nations and Metis peoples and communities requires equity-oriented healthcare approaches to address specific problems and challenges faced by these populations. Family, community and systemic level interventions that directly implement community recommendations are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".