KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICES TOWARDS INFANT ORAL MUTILATION AMONG MOTHERS OF LOMULE VILLAGE, BOMBO IN LUWERO DISTRICT- A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Infant Oral Mutilation (IOM) was a dangerous and sometimes fatal traditional or convectional dental malpractice that had been performed for decades in many areas of Africa. Uganda remains among the countries with almost a quarter of all deaths from IOM among infants. Methodology A descriptive cross-sectional study was designed on 50 respondents using a convenient sampling nonprobability technique and interview questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Results 88.0% of respondents had ever had IOM, 74% knew IOM as the practice of removing the infant's harmful teeth,62% reported diarrhea, fever, and vomiting as the major reasons for carrying out false teeth removal,58% reported that they take their children who develop false teeth to the traditional healer for removal,54% reported that the child would die if the false teeth were not removed,88% reported that IOM was a good practice,74% reported that they carried out IOM to treat childhood illness like fever, vomiting, diarrhea,60%reported that traditional healers are the only people competent enough to decide whether the infant's teeth was to be removed,68% reported that the infant's teeth were removed at around 4-8months of age,56%reported that a bicycle spoke was used to remove the infant false teeth,88.0% reported that the child got better after false teeth removal. Conclusion The knowledge of the practice of IOM among mothers was not satisfactory. However, their attitude and practices which included myths and beliefs towards IOM were likely to expose more children to false teeth removal. Recommendations The community health workers should sensitize the community about the dangers of IOM, and teach mothers or caregivers the appropriate preventive measures and recommended management of childhood illness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".