Oral health behaviour, knowledge, and attitude among nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Nursing students play an important role in oral health promotion, after they graduate and start working within the health care system. The aim of this study was to determine the oral health behaviour, knowledge, and attitude among Danish senior nursing students.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out among students at the Education of Nurses, VIA University College, Aarhus, Denmark, using an electronic questionnaire consisting of 22 questions regarding oral health behaviour, knowledge, and attitude.Results: One hundred students completed the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 79%. A majority of the students brushed their teeth twice daily (89%), visited the dentist at least once a year (55%), and described their teeth and gingiva as extremely good or very good (80%). The students had good oral health knowledge regarding plaque and dental caries. However, the knowledge about periodontal diseases such as gingivitis and periodontitis was insufficient. Nearly all students stated that oral health is an important part of nursing care (97%) and important for the general health (87%). Over half of the students (64%) thought that oral health training should be updated and expanded in the nursing education.Conclusions: The participating students had good oral care behaviour. In some areas, the students had adequate oral health knowledge, while the knowledge about especially periodontal disease was insufficient. The majority of the students had a positive attitude toward oral health and wanted oral health training to be prioritised in the nursing education.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".