Provision of mouth‐care in long‐term care facilities: an educational trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a pyramid-based education for improving the oral health of elders in long-term care (LTC) facilities. METHODS: Fourteen facilities matched for size were assigned randomly to an active or control group. At baseline in each facility, care-aides in the active group participated with a full-time nurse educator in a seminar about oral health care, and had unlimited access to the educator for oral health-related advice throughout the 3-month trial. Care-aides in the control group participated in a similar seminar with a dental hygienist but they received no additional advice. The residents in the facilities at baseline and after 3 months were examined clinically to measure their oral hygiene, gingival health, masticatory potential, Body Mass Index and Malnutrition Indicator Score, and asked to report on chewing difficulties. RESULTS: Clinical measures after 3 months were not significantly different from baseline in either group, indicating that education neither influenced the oral health nor the dental hygiene of the residents. CONCLUSIONS: A pyramid-based educational scheme with nurses and care-aides did not improve the oral health of frail elders in this urban sample of LTC facilities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".