Long-Term Effects of School-Based Oral Health Program on Oral Health Knowledge and Practices and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of exposure to the School Oral Health Program (SOHP) during primary school years on the current oral health (OH) knowledge and practices and OH-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of Kuwait University students. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 300 university students, aged 17.6-24.3 years, completed a validated questionnaire that consisted of 5 sections about demographics, health self-evaluation, OH knowledge and practices and OHRQoL. Of these students, 260 were female, 40 male, 262 single and 38 married. 189 participants had attended the SOHP, while 111 had not. Frequencies and means were used for data description. The Student t test was used to compare the means, while χ(2) analysis was used for the associations between SOHP and non-SOHP attendance. The odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for significant factors. RESULTS: The SOHP attendees were twice as aware of the relationship between gum problems and heart diseases than the non-SOHP (OR = 2, 95% CI = 1.15-3.48, p = 0.013). The daily activities of the non-SOHP attendees were twice as likely to be affected by dental health issues compared to those of the SOHP attendees (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.41-3.68, p < 0.001). In addition, the SOHP attendees were 3 times as likely to describe their OH status as good/very good/excellent than the non-SOHP attendees (OR = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.31-6.18, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The SOHP attendees had a better OHRQoL and overall self-satisfaction with their OH than the non-SOHP attendees with insignificant differences between the 2 groups in OH knowledge and practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".