The role of fathers in feeding, care, and dental hygiene practices of children aged <6 years: A rapid scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The contribution of fathers in the early stages of child development, especially in feeding care and dental hygiene practices, is increasingly recognized but not well-documented. This rapid scoping review aims to broadly map the existing literature on this subject, focusing on children aged less than six years, and to identify areas where further research is needed. Objectives To explore the extent and nature of research on fathers’ roles in feeding care and dental hygiene practices for children under six years old. The review aims to identify key themes, variations in fatherly involvement across different contexts, and gaps in the current literature. Methods A structured search of key databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus, was performed. Studies included in the review involved fathers of children aged less than six years and addressed aspects of feeding care or dental hygiene. The process involved screening for relevance, categorizing studies into thematic areas, and summarizing overarching themes. Results The search yielded 15 studies encompassing diverse geographical and socio-cultural contexts. The review underscores the variability in fathers’ roles, influenced by factors such as urbanization, education, and cultural norms. It reveals that while fathers often serve as financial providers and role models, direct involvement in feeding and dental hygiene is less common. Notably, the literature on fathers’ involvement in children’s dental hygiene is limited. Conclusions Fathers’ roles in feeding care and dental hygiene practices for children under six years are multifaceted and context dependent. The review highlights significant gaps, particularly in understanding the involvement of fathers in dental hygiene. Addressing these gaps through future research is essential for developing comprehensive family-centred health care strategies and policies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".