Is the authoritative parenting model effective in changing oral hygiene behavior in adolescents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether the authoritative parenting model (APM) is more effective than conventional approaches for changing adolescent oral hygiene behavior. A total of 247 adolescents were recruited using a cluster random-sampling method. Subject groups were randomly allocated into an intervention group (APM-based interventions), a Control Group 1 (conventional dental education and behavior modification) or a Control Group 2 (conventional behavior modification). The results were assessed after 3 and 12 months. Oral hygiene level was assessed as percent dental plaque and the ratio of plaque percent change (RPC). At the 3-month follow-up, there were significant differences among the groups; the APM group had the largest decrease in plaque levels (24.5%), Control Group 1 showed a decrease in plaque levels of 15.4% and Control Group 2 showed an increase in plaque levels of 2.8%. At the 12-month follow-up, an improvement was observed in all groups, but there were no statistically significant differences among the groups. In the short term, the intervention based on the APM was more effective in changing adolescent oral hygiene behavior compared with the conventional approaches. The reasons for long-term positive change after discontinued interventions in control groups need to be explored in future studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".