Impact of research paradigms on low-income female caregivers and their children: an oral health literacy discourse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite the vast knowledge gained through research and public health surveillance, dental caries prevalence among children from low-income households remains high. The aim of this literature review is to identify assumptions made within existing empirical, constructivist, and critical paradigms to determine how those assumptions impact knowledge and if these impacts have aided in perpetuating inequity or health disparities within this target population. Method: A literature search of EBSCOhost, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted to retrieve articles from peer-reviewed journals published in the last 10 years, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Qualitative methods included narrative research via interviews; quantitative designs included cross-sectional studies using surveys and various indices to assess oral health literacy (OHL) levels and oral health status. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies and studies that did not include female caregivers. Results: Nine primary research articles were selected for analysis. The positivist paradigm was dominant in 7 of 9 articles. Oral health social processes, such as the lack of value placed on oral health as a component of overall health by the broader medical community and the public, were not discussed as influencing factors on OHL. Discussion: Assumptions identified within the dominant paradigms were determined to perpetuate inequity or health disparities, confirming a link between caregivers' OHL levels and the oral health status of their children. It is critical that all health care professionals improve their understanding of factors affecting caregivers' OHL. Conclusion: Strategies that empower and advocate for women to improve their OHL should be developed.
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 | 0.136 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".