Effectiveness of various health education methods amongst primary healthcare workers of western Uttar Pradesh, Delhi (National Capital Region), India: A promotive intervention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of various health education methods for improving oral health knowledge of accredited social health activists (ASHA) and Anganwadi workers of Muradnagar Block, Ghaziabad-Delhi NCR. Methods: A promotive interventional study was conducted amongst 301 ASHA and Anganwadi workers of Muradnagar block at three steps such as baseline, oral health education programme (OHEP), and reinforcement to assess their oral health knowledge using predesigned, close-ended, validated, questionnaire. Four different methods were used in OHEP to disseminate knowledge, namely, health talks, posters, and pamphlets, PowerPoint presentations, and a combination of all methods. Post-assessment was done one week after OHEP followed by reinforcement after 1 month which was followed by final post-assessment after 1 week. Students’ independent t -test and one-way ANOVA were used for analysing data. Results: At baseline, primary healthcare workers had mean knowledge scores as 14.67 ± 1.152 which was increased to 20.96 ± 1.053 after the intervention and 27.6 ± 0.762 after reinforcement. There was an increase of 7.6% and 14.3% of primary healthcare workers giving correct responses after OHEP and reinforcement, respectively. Conclusions: The combination method was the most effective in improving oral health knowledge of study population followed by posters and pamphlets and the least effective method was PowerPoint presentation. Dentists can play a vital role in mobilising the primary healthcare workers by consequently contributing towards improving the oral health status of the community.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".