Immigrant Parents’ Perceived Social Support and Their Children’s Oral Health Behaviors and Caries Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the associations between immigrant parents’ perceived social support (PSS) and their children’s oral health behaviors (OHB) and caries experience. We recruited immigrant parents and children aged 2−12 years. Data were collected on the sociodemographic and OHB information of the children. The parents’ total PSS score and its dimensions were measured using the validated Personal Resource Questionnaire (PRQ2000). Dental examinations determined the children’s caries experience using the DMFT/dmft index. A total of 336 parents and children were included in the study. Household income predicted the parents’ PSS (B = −5.69; 95% CI −9.077, −2.32). Children of parents with higher PSS reported ≥2 toothbrushing/day (p ≤ 0.05). Among the PSS domains, parental education level predicted their social integration (B = −0.16; 95% CI −0.30, −0.02) and nurturance (B = −0.24; 95% CI −0.43, −0.06). Family income predicted social integration (B = −0.17; 95% CI −0.33 −0.01), worth (B = −0.23; 95% CI −0.39 −0.06), and assistance (B = −0.22; 95% CI −0.42 −0.01). Parents with higher scores of intimacy and social integration were more aware of their children’s oral health (p = 0.01). The parental social integration mean scores were significantly higher among parents whose children consumed ≥1 sugary snack/day (p = 0.02). All five domain scores were significantly higher among parents of children who reported ≥2 toothbrushing/day compared with children who brushed <2/day (p < 0.05). The results demonstrated that parents’ PSS only improved their children’s toothbrushing frequency. Compared to other domains, social integration was significantly associated with children’s OHB. Neither parental PSS total score nor domains were associated with DMFT/dmft.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".