Effect of motivational interviewing on rates of early childhood caries: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this randomized controlled trial were to: (1) test motivational interviewing (MI) to prevent early childhood caries; and (2) use Poisson regression for data analysis. METHODS: A total of 240 South Asian children 6 to 18 months old were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the MI or control condition. Children had a dental exam, and their mothers completed pretested instruments at baseline and 1 and 2 years postintervention. Other covariates that might explain outcomes over and above treatment differences were modeled using Poisson regression. Hazard ratios were produced. RESULTS: Analyses included all participants whenever possible. Poisson regression supported a protective effect of MI (hazard ratio [HR]=0.54 (95%CI=035-0.84)-that is, the M/ group had about a 46% lower rate of dmfs at 2 years than did control children. Similar treatment effect estimates were obtained from models that included, as alternative outcomes, ds, dms, and dmfs, including "white spot lesions." Exploratory analyses revealed that rates of dmfs were higher in children whose mothers had: (1) prechewed their food; (2) been raised in a rural environment; and (3) a higher family income (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A motivational interviewing-style intervention shows promise to promote preventive behaviors in mothers of young children at high risk for caries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".