Effectiveness of "Safeguard Your Smile," an oral health literacy intervention, on oral hygiene self-care behaviour among Punjabi immigrants:A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research shows that immigrants have higher rates of oral diseases, poorer access to dental care services, and lower levels of health literacy than their Canadian-born peers. Oral health literacy has emerged as a potential pathway to reduce oral health disparities. The scarcity of studies on oral health literacy interventions, particularly among immigrants, lent urgency to this study, the purpose of which was to evaluate the effectiveness of an oral health literacy intervention promoting oral hygiene self-care behaviour among Punjabi immigrants. METHODS: The study used a parallel group, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial design. One hundred and forty (140) Punjabi immigrants between 18 and 60 years of age were enrolled. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the Safeguard Your Smile (SYS) intervention or a conventional pamphlet. The following outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3 months post-intervention: self-reported oral hygiene self-care behaviour and knowledge, plaque and gingival indices, and oral health literacy. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare the intervention and control groups (between) at pre- and post-intervention (within). RESULTS: <0.0001) for the following dependent variables: oral hygiene self-care knowledge and behaviour, oral health literacy, and plaque and gingival indices. CONCLUSIONS: SYS intervention enhanced positive oral hygiene self-care behaviour among Punjabi immigrants with low oral health literacy. SYS intervention can be employed among other vulnerable groups with low levels of oral health literacy to improve oral hygiene self-care behaviour.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".