Knowledge attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals on oral care of pregnant women- a national study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To examine nationwide the knowledge, attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals on the oral care of pregnant women in Brunei Darussalam. Materials and methods A descriptive cross-sectional study conducted using an online survey on eligible healthcare professionals in all Government Maternal and Child Health Care Clinics, Dental Clinics and Obstetrics and Gynecological Clinics throughout Brunei Darussalam (N = 346). Results A total of 346 healthcare professionals participated in this online study. Participants’ view on the importance of dental/oral health in prenatal/antenatal care, most (94.3%) responded that they perceive dental/oral health to be of high importance. Though, only a little over half of the participants (59.0%) included dental/oral health questions during prenatal/antenatal health assessments. Moreover, only 16.2% of participants frequently discussed regarding the importance of dental/oral care with their prenatal/antenatal patients. Conclusions According to this study, most healthcare professionals had a positive attitude towards the importance of dental/oral care for prenatal/antenatal patients. However, not all portrayed it when it comes to their practice with regard to dental/oral care in pregnant women.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".