Oral hygiene education in adolescence based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study hypothesised that interventions based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) are more effective than the conventional approach in modifying oral hygiene behaviour in adolescents. METHOD: A stratified random sampling method was used with subject groups (classrooms) randomly allocated to a control or to one of intervention groups (conventional instruction or PAPM). Short-term and long-term results were assessed after 3 and 12 months. The study sample comprised 254 12-13 year olds whose plaque levels were assessed by two outcome measures, namely the Quantitative Plaque Percent Index and its derivative the Ratio of Plaque % Change. RESULTS: Subject retention rate was 69%. The most substantial decrease in plaque scores was in the PAPM group (12% after 3 months, 18% after 12 months), while the smallest reduction was in the control group (4% after 3 months and 12% after 12 months). There was a trend of reduction in plaque levels (p < 0.001) in all study groups from baseline to the 12 month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model was only slightly more effective in changing adolescent oral hygiene behaviour as compared to the conventional approach. The positive change in the control group was unexpected and needs further exploration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".