Effects of Different Levels of Caregiver Training on Oral Hygiene After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of caregiver training on poststroke oral hygiene and to identify appropriate structures for training programs. DESIGN: Single-blind prospective cohort study. SETTING: Haikou, China. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals in home care who have had a stroke (N = 150) and their caregivers (N = 150). Eligibility criteria were stable condition, no recent use of antibiotics or periodontal therapy, presence of Ramfjord teeth or neighboring substitutes, and satisfactory Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Burke Water Swallow Test scores. INTERVENTION: Limited (LOHI) or comprehensive (COHI) oral hygiene instructions. MEASUREMENTS: Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index (GI) scores (ranging from 0 to 3 for both). RESULTS: Twenty care recipients and their caregivers dropped out during the study. In the care recipient groups, PI and GI scores in the COHI group were lower than in the control and LOHI groups at the end of the second and third month (P < .001). Decline in PI and GI scores in the COHI group started from the first month (P < .001). In the caregiver groups, GI and PI scores in the COHI group were lower than in the control and LOHI groups after baseline (P < .001). Decline in PI and GI scores in the COHI group started from the second month (P < .001), although no group achieved clinically satisfactory levels. Multiple regression analysis revealed that care recipients' PI was correlated with caregivers' PI, number of sessions, and group allocation, as was care recipients' GI with caregivers' GI, number of sessions, and group allocation. CONCLUSION: Additional assessment of program components is necessary to produce clinically significant outcomes. Caregiver PI and GI scores may serve as objective measures of their oral hygiene skills, which can be improved with comprehensive instructions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".