Social capital and oral health in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the association of individual and contextual social capital with oral health outcomes in children and adolescents. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases for articles published from 1966 up to June 2021. Two calibrated reviewers screened and critically appraised the identified papers. Observational studies that evaluated the relationship of individual or/and contextual social capital or their proxies with oral health outcomes in children and adolescents using validated methods were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted for narrative synthesis and meta-analysis followed by a meta-regression model. Meta-analysis using random effects method was used to estimate pooled prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of the 3060 studies initially retrieved, 31 were included in the systematic review and 21 in the meta-analysis, totalling 81 241 individuals. The clinical outcomes included dental caries and gingival bleeding and subjective outcomes were oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and self-rated oral health (SROH). Individuals with lower levels of individual social capital had a higher prevalence of poor clinical (PR 1.11; 95%CI 1.02-1.22) and subjective (PR 1.25; 95%CI 1.09-1.45) oral health conditions. The prevalence of worse clinical (PR 1.34; 95%CI 1.11-1.61) and subjective (PR 1.56; 95%CI 1.13-2.16) oral health outcomes were also associated with lower levels of contextual social capital. In general, the contextual level of social capital exerted more impact, and the subjective oral health outcomes were the more affected. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual and individual social capital were positively related to oral health outcomes, such as dental caries, gingival bleeding, SROH and OHRQoL in children and adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".