Impact evaluation of a school-based oral health program: Kuwait National Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the relationship between enrolment in a school-based oral health prevention program (SOHP) and: 1) children’s dental health status and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and 2) mothers’ oral health (OH) knowledge, attitude, practice, and OHRQoL. This cross-sectional study, in the Kuwait Capital, included 440 primary school children aged 11 to 12 years and their mothers. Participants were classified into two groups: SOHP and non-SOHP. The SOHP group had been enrolled in the prevention program for at least 3 years: children had twice-a-year applications of fluoride varnish and fissure sealants if needed; mothers had, at least, one oral health education session. The non-SOHP group had negative consents and had not been exposed to the prevention program activities. Dental examinations were performed at schools using portable dental units. Caries experience was determined using the decayed (D/d), missing (M/m), and filled (F/f) teeth (T/t)/surface (S/s) indices. Children’s OHRQoL was assessed using a self-administered validated Child Perceptions Questionnaire 11–14 (CPQ 11–14 ). Mothers’ OH knowledge, attitude, practice, and OHRQoL were also assessed. After Bonferroni correction, a p -value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for caries experience measures while a p-value of less than 0.013 was considered statistically significant for OHRQoL subscales and mothers’ OH knowledge, attitude, practice, and OHRQoL. Mean (SD) DT/dt, DMFT/dmft and DMFS/dmfs were 1.41 (1.66), 2.35 (2.33), and 4.41 (5.86) for SOHP children, respectively. For non-SOHP children, the means were 2.61 (2.63), 3.56 (3.05), and 7.24 (7.78), respectively. The difference between the SOHP and non-SOHP was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Children enrolled in the program had a higher number of sealed and restored teeth. No significant differences were found in CPQ 11–14 scores or subscale scores between the two groups. No significant difference in mothers’ OH knowledge, attitude, practices or OHRQoL was found between SOHP and non-SOHP groups ( P > 0.013). Enrolment in the SOHP prevention services was associated with a positive impact on children’s caries level with no significant impact on mothers’ knowledge, attitude, practice, or OHRQoL.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".