The effects of providing periodontal disease risk information on psychological outcomes – a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In a two arm randomized controlled trial this study compared the effects of a routine periodontal assessment consultation versus a routine consultation + individualized risk assessment communication intervention on patient thoughts and emotions about periodontal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults (N = 102) with moderate/advanced chronic periodontitis referred to a Periodontology Department of a large UK dental school, completed psychological measures before a periodontal assessment and again at the end of the visit. Intervention participants received an individualized calculation of their periodontal disease risk using PreViser Risk Calculator in addition to their routine assessment consultation. RESULTS: In routine care, patients' thoughts about periodontal disease seriousness (p < 0.001) and susceptibility (p < 0.03) increased post-consultation and participants felt more positive (p < 0.02) about periodontal disease. These effects were also seen in intervention participants. Additionally, the individualized risk communication intervention led to patients reporting i) periodontal disease treatment as more effective than they did pre-consultation (p < 0.001), ii) feeling more confident in their ability to adhere to treatment as seen in increases in self-efficacy (p < 0.05) and iii) higher intentions to adhere to periodontal management (p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Individualized periodontal disease risk communication influences psychological variables that underpin adherence with periodontal instructions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".