The relationship between the source of oral health information and dental caries: Findings from Child Dental Health Survey 2013 in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude and shape of the relationship between dental caries experience and the source of oral health information in England. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using the Child Dental Health Survey 2013 in England. Using a negative binomial model, the relationship between the number of decayed, missing, filled teeth (DMFT) of 12- and 15-year-old students and their primary source of oral health information was assessed. The sources of oral health information included parents, television, newspapers, the Internet, and social media. The adjusted model included age, sex, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). R was used for data handling, analysis and reporting. RESULTS: Overall, 2,372 children were assessed (48.7% female, 48.6% 12-year-old). For the majority, the primary source of oral health information was their parents (89.5%) followed by the Internet (43.4%). Over nine-tenth of the participants had a DMFT = 0. The adjusted model showed that the prevalence rate of DMFT for the children whose primary source of information is their parents (0.45) or television (0.62) is lower than 1. The prevalence rate for the Internet (1.17) and social media (1.67) was higher than 1, but they were removed from the final model due to being non-statistically significant. Age and deprivation had a direct relationship with the prevalence rate of DMFT, meaning that 15-year-olds and children from more deprived areas had a higher prevalence rate of DMFT. CONCLUSION: Children whose primary source of oral health information was their parents or television had a lower DMFT. On the contrary, using the Internet or social media as the source of oral health information was associated with higher caries experience among schoolchildren.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".