Self‐efficacy theory‐based intervention in adolescents: a cluster randomized trial—focus on oral self‐care practice and oral self‐care skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The cluster randomized trial tested the efficacy of professional dental education for improving oral self‐care skills (OSC‐S) and oral self‐care practice (OSC‐P) in adolescents. Design All 15‐ to 16‐year‐old adolescents from four public schools were invited and 206 agreed to participate. Schools were randomly allocated to the intervention group and to the control group. Five sessions were given for the intervention group and one for the control group. The OSC‐S and OSC‐P outcomes were measured as % Oral Cleanliness Scores at the baseline, 6‐month, and 12‐month observations. Results OSC‐S and OSC‐P correlated significantly (Pearson's) at the baseline (r = 0.777, P < 0.001), at the 6‐month (r = 0.745, P < 0.001), and at the 12‐month (r = 0.780, P < 0.001) examinations. After the guided oral healthcare interventions, a significant time × group effect was observed (repeated‐measures anova, P < 0.001 for the OSC‐S (multivariate η2 = 0.355) and for the OSC‐P (multivariate η2 = 0.325). Conclusion (i) Oral self‐care skills and oral self‐care practice scores were significantly correlated, (ii) self‐efficacy theory‐guided intervention was superior to the conventional dental instruction to improve oral self‐care in adolescents, and (iii) varying levels of oral self‐care improvement were observed among the intervention group adolescents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".