Managing oral hygiene as a risk factor for periodontal disease: a systematic review of psychological approaches to behaviour change for improved plaque control in periodontal management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plaque control in patients with periodontal disease is critically dependent upon self-care through specific oral hygiene-related behaviours. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between adherence to oral hygiene instructions in adult periodontal patients and psychological constructs. To determine the effect of interventions based on psychological constructs on oral health-related behaviour in adult periodontal patients. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were grouped according to the study design, and appraised using an appropriate methodology, either the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment for observational studies, or the Cochrane criteria for trials. RESULTS: Fifteen reports of studies were identified. LIMITATIONS: There was a low risk of bias identified for the observational studies. Older trials suffered from high risk of bias, but more recent trials had low risk of bias. However, the specification of the psychological intervention was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: The use of goal setting, self-monitoring and planning are effective interventions for improving oral hygiene-related behaviour in patients with periodontal disease. Understanding the benefits of behaviour change and the seriousness of periodontal disease are important predictors of the likelihood of behaviour change.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".