Are School Oral Health Programs Effective in Changing Dental Health and Health Behavior of Children; an Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral health issues are recorded to be growing among children due to either insufficient knowledge or ineffective oral health care. The study investigated the effectiveness of the school oral health (OH) program for changing dental health and health behavior among the students in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This cross-sectional design study followed STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines to include 348 female primary children in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. These were equally divided into three groups; i.e., teacher delivered oral health program, dentist delivered oral health program, and lastly control group. Data was collected through a close-ended questionnaire, and were analyzed through descriptive statistics and ANOVA. RESULTS: Findings of the study showed improved OH status, better OH knowledge, behavior and practices among children. Self-evaluation results showed that the teachers conducted education program was more effective, then the dentists conducted education program. Also, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) score was found high for the psychological aspect of the children. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of the school oral health program for changing dental health and health behavior among the students was better.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".