Improving residents’ oral health through staff education in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the efficacy of oral care education among nursing home staff members to improve the oral health of residents. Nursing home support staff members (NHSSMs) in the study group received oral care education at baseline between a pretest and posttest. NHSSMs' oral care knowledge was measured using a 20-item knowledge test at baseline, posteducation, and at a 6-month follow-up. Residents' oral health was assessed at baseline and again at a 6-month follow-up using the Modified Plaque Index (PI) and Modified Gingival Index (GI). Among staff members who received the oral care education (n = 32), posttest knowledge statistically significantly increased from the pretest level (p < .05). Thirty-nine control residents of the nursing homes and 41 study residents participated. Among residents in the study group, PI decreased at 6 months compared to baseline (p < .05), but there was no statistically significant difference in their GI measurements between baseline and 6-month follow-up (p= .07).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".