Improving Oral Hygiene in Institutionalised Elderly by Educating Their Caretakers in Bangalore City, India: a Randomised Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The population of older people, as well as the number of dependent older people, is steadily increasing; those unable to live independently at home are being cared for in a range of settings. Practical training for nurses and auxiliary care staff has frequently been recommended as a way of improving oral health care for functionally dependent elderly. The aim was improve oral hygiene in institutionalized elderly in Bangalore city by educating their caregivers. METHODS: The study is a cluster randomized intervention trial with an elderly home as unit of randomization in which 7 out of 65 elderly homes were selected. Oral health knowledge of caregivers was assessed using a pre-tested pro forma and later oral-health education was provided to the caregivers of the study group. Oral hygiene status of elderly residents was assessed by levels of debris, plaque of dentate and denture plaque, and denture stomatitis of denture wearing residents, respectively. Oral-health education to the caregivers of control group was given at the end of six months. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in oral-health knowledge of caregivers from the baseline and also a significant reduction of plaque score from baseline score of 3.17 ± 0.40 to 1.57 ± 0.35 post-intervention (p < .001), debris score 2.87 ± 0.22 to 1.49 ± 0.34 (p < .001), denture plaque score 3.15 ± 0.47 to 1.21 ± 0.27 (p < .001), and denture stomatitis score 1.43 ± 0.68 to 0.29 ± 0.53 (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The result of the present study showed that there was a significant improvement in the oral-health knowledge among the caregivers and oral-hygiene status of the elderly residents.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".