Parental acceptance toward behavior guidance techniques for pediatric dental visits: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to answer the following question: What is the proportion of acceptance reported by parents toward pediatric behavior guidance techniques (BGTs)? Observational studies that evaluated parental acceptance of BGTs during pediatric dental visits among parents of non-special health care need (non-SHCN) and SHCN children were included. A search of the Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), MedLine/PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in addition to gray literature, was performed until October 2021. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies was used for quality assessment. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (Grade). Fifty-three studies with 4868 participants were included, and 42 were retained for the random-effects proportion meta-analysis. The methodological quality varied from low to high. The agreement with the BGTs varied from 85.6% (95%CI: 77.5-92.1; p < 0.001; I 2 = 93.6%; 16 studies; n = 1399) for tell-show-do to 25.7% (95%CI: 17.8-34.4; p < 0.001; I 2 = 90.4%; 12 studies; n = 1129) for passive protective stabilization among non-SHCN children's parents; meanwhile, among the parents of SHCN children, it varied from 89.1% (95%CI: 56.1-99.7; p < 0.001; I 2 = 95.7%; 3 studies; n = 454) for tell-show-do to 29.1% (95%CI: 11.8-50.0; p = 0.001; I 2 = 84.8%; 3 studies; n = 263) for general anesthesia. The effect estimates varied greatly, as substantial heterogeneity across studies was observed, thus limiting the confidence in the results. Parents were more likely to agree with basic BGTs over advanced BGTs, with very low certainty of evidence. Dentists should discuss BGT options with parents. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42018103834.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".