Assessment of Pediatricians’ Knowledge, Practices, and Attitudes on Oral Health/Care in Children in the Last Decade: A Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatricians are primary health care professionals who supervise the growth and development and treat infants and children during the first years of life. Thus, they should possess knowledge regarding oral health care, to provide anticipatory guidance, as well as dental education to parents in order to make appropriate clinical decisions. For many years, several surveys have been performed worldwide to assess the pediatricians' knowledge, awareness, and experience regarding oral health care and prevention. This work aimed to scope the existing literature and summarize the most relevant evidence about knowledge, practices, and attitudes on oral health/care among pediatricians worldwide. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source were explored. Under a structured PCC question and eligibility criteria, for relevant clinical trials and observational studies, published during the last decade. Titles and abstracts were screened. Full-text articles were critically reviewed for bias risk and a data charting table was constructed. A total of 44 references were initially identified, and 37 titles remained for abstract screening after removing duplicates; then, 27 potential full-text articles were carefully reviewed. Finally, 25 relevant and most informative studies were included. The selected studies were conducted in India, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Paraguay, Europe, Australia, Qatar, Iran, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Taiwan, Canada, and the USA. Through included surveys, researchers have reported different levels of knowledge, practice involvement, and attitude on children's oral health among pediatricians. In general, unsatisfactory knowledge of oral health was reported. The main impediments for a better professional involvement or practice include inappropriate education, poor auto-confidence, and lack of time. So, it has been suggested that some oral health training or clinical guidelines should be included in the current medical curricula.
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 | 0.032 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".