A cluster randomized theory‐guided oral hygiene trial in adolescents—A latent growth model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (i) To test whether theory-guided interventions are more effective than conventional dental instruction (CDI) for changing oral hygiene in adolescents and (ii) to examine whether such interventions equally benefit both genders and different socio-economic (SES) groups. METHODS: A total of 244 adolescents were recruited from three schools, and cluster randomization allocated adolescents to one of the three types of interventions: two were theory-based interventions (Precaution Adoption Process Model or Authoritative Parenting Model) and CDI served as an active control. Oral hygiene levels % (OH) were assessed at baseline, after 3 months and after 12 months. RESULTS: A complete data set was available for 166 adolescents (the total follow-up rate: 69%). There were no significant differences in baseline OH between those who participated throughout the study and those who dropped out. Bivariate and multivariate analyses showed that theory-guided interventions produced significant improvements in oral hygiene and that there were no significant gender or socio-economic differences. CONCLUSIONS: Theory-guided interventions produced more positive changes in OH than CDI, and these changes did not differ between gender and SES groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".