Parents' experiences regarding the use of papoose boards on their children during dental services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTObjectives. Various pharmacological and non-pharmacological behaviour management techniques (BMTs) are available to increase children’s cooperation during the dental treatment. The papoose board, a non-pharmacological BMT, is a kind of physical restraint that is attached to the patient’s body to avoid sudden body movements. The literature suggests that this technique has been controversial in dentistry, due to its reported harmful consequences, but it is still widely used in many parts of the world, including Canada. To the best of our knowledge, there is no qualitative research to provide us insight of parents’ experiences. Thus, this study intended to understand the lived experiences of parents regarding the papoose boards used on their child during the dental treatment. Methods. Interpretive phenomenology is the methodology adopted as it enabled us to elicit the perceptions of the parents based on their experiences about the use of a papoose board on their child. We interviewed parents of children treated with papoose in the Montreal Children’s Hospital (MCH). The MCH was chosen to be our research partner because its dental clinic uses papoose boards on a daily basis. We adopted a purposeful sampling technique to select seven participants. The method for data collection was in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, debriefed with research partners and interpretively analyzed.Results. We identified three main findings in our study. First, parents experiences regarding the papoose boards. Some parents were in favour of using papoose boards and considered it necessary during the treatment, whereas others were completely against it and described its use as “betraying the trust” of their children. Second, factors guiding the decision-making process. The participants who communicated and discussed their concerns regarding the use of papoose boards with their dentists were relatively satisfied as compared to those who could not communicate much. Providing sufficient time for decision-making was an important factor that affected the level of acceptance of the papoose boards by the parents. Thirdly, confrontation of expectations of the parents due to their past experiences. The parents that recently immigrated to Canada compared the dental strategies with those of their country of origin. They felt that the dentists in Canada are highly concerned of profits or tended to be more business minded and use papoose to treat more patients in less time. Conclusion. These findings will provide our partners from MCH and other dentists an enhanced understanding of the experience of parents related to the papoose boards. We hope it will help them developing strategies to better treat children, such as having detailed communication regarding the papoose boards with the parents, giving them time for decision-making, and keeping the initial visit exploratory to familiarize the family with the papoose boards and establish rapport with the children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".