A theory‐guided school‐based intervention in order to improve adolescents' oral self‐care: a cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficiency of social-cognitive theory-guided oral hygiene interventions in adolescents and to identify predictors of adolescents' self-care practice. DESIGN: A cluster randomized trial included 197 15- to 16-year-olds from two secondary schools. The intervention group received three face-to-face educational hands-on sessions facilitated by a dentist and adolescents worked in pairs. Individual dental plaque levels were measured at baseline, after intervention, at six and at 12 months. The structured questionnaire inquired about gender, family socio-economic status (baseline), and different social-cognitive domain variables (baseline, six, and 12 months). RESULTS: At baseline, there were no statistically significant differences in dental plaque scores between the intervention and control groups (P = 0.183). At the 6-month follow-up, the intervention group had significantly less dental plaque than the control group (P = 0.047), but the intergroup difference in dental plaque levels was not significant at the 12-month follow-up (P = 0.400). Variations in dental plaque levels at different time periods were explained by the following predictors: family's socio-economic status, social-cognitive domain variables, group affiliation, and baseline plaque levels. CONCLUSIONS: Social-cognitive theory-guided interventions improved oral self-care of adolescents in the short term. After the intervention was discontinued, the improvement in oral self-care of adolescents lasted for another 5 months.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".