MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414092129 · doi:10.2196/72107

Co-Design and Development of the SmilesUp Text Messaging Intervention Using Behavioral Theory to Support Parents of Children With Early Childhood Caries: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4414092129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca Chen, Michelle Irving, Carrie Tsai, Bradley Christian, Harleen Kumar, Angela Masoe, Neeta Prabhu, Woosung Sohn, Heiko Spallek, Clara K Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)BedtimeTheory of planned behaviormHealthNudge theoryEarly childhoodBehavior changeText messagingBehavioral analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Early childhood caries (ECC) remains a common childhood condition that affects 600 million children worldwide. Providing parents with support for oral health behavior change can address ECC risk factors and complement preventive clinical care. Mobile health (mHealth) text message programs that are co-designed and evaluated by parents and health professionals using behavior theory have been shown to be effective in improving oral health outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to describe the co-design process, development, and content evaluation of a text message program designed to promote oral health behavior change among parents of children diagnosed with ECC using the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) framework. Methods: The SmilesUp mHealth program was co-designed with parents in 2 stages using the BCW, a widely used theoretical framework to underpin mHealth programs, recommended by the World Health Organization. Through focus groups with parents in phase 1, the BCW was used to understand parental perspectives by identifying barriers and enablers and selecting target behaviors that could be feasibly delivered within a mHealth intervention. Barriers and enablers were mapped to the relevant theoretical domains and behavior change technique (BCT) of the BCW. Phase 2 evaluated content acceptability, measured by understandability, usefulness, and appropriateness of the program through questionnaires with parents and health professionals. Highly rated messages were finalized into an algorithm for the SMS text message program. Results: In phase 1, the overall target behavior was parental behavior change to support good oral health, including oral hygiene, reduced dietary sugar intake, and bedtime routines for their children. The 5 intervention functions focused on education, modeling, persuasion, environmental restructuring, and enablement, and 16 BCTs focused on addressing the motivational enablers and knowledge gap barriers identified by the parents. A total of 111 draft health messages were developed and mapped to the BCTs. In phase 2, a total of 2045 reviews of the 111 draft messages were completed by parents (14/31, 45.2%) and health professionals (17/31, 54.8%). Parents rated 77.4% (86/111) and health professionals rated 61.2% (68/111) of the messages as understandable, useful, and accepted. The messages that were considered understandable, useful, and appropriate by both groups were incorporated into the SmilesUp 12-week semipersonalized SMS message program. Conclusions: The SmilesUp mHealth program uses behavioral theory to address knowledge gaps in tooth brushing, diet, and bedtime routines identified by parents. It provides parents with convenient, bite-sized nudges of information to support oral health-promoting behaviors in the home context. Robust content development and evaluation are crucial initial steps before further investments are made to conduct a clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of the program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.404 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207