Oral Health and Psychosocial Predictors of Quality of Life and General Well-Being among Adolescents in Lesotho, Southern Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents' quality of life is reported to be significantly associated with physical and social wellbeing. Although adolescents are 30% of the Southern African population, no previous studies have focused on this group in relation to oral health and quality of life. METHODS: A 40-item survey and clinical oral examinations were conducted in public schools in Maseru from 10 to 25 August 2016. Simple, bivariate, and multivariate regressions were used to evaluate the associations of oral health and psychosocial factors with self-reported general health status and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 526 participants, aged 12-19 years old, responded to the survey and participated in the clinical examinations. The majority reported a good (good/very good/excellent) quality of life (84%) and general health (81%). Bivariate results showed that self-reported general health in this population was significantly influenced by age. The presence of toothache and sensitivity in the adolescents were significantly associated with poor (fair/poor) self-reported general health and were found to be the best predictors for self-general health and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of dental conditions such as toothache and tooth sensitivity can lead to a better perception of general health and Quality of Life in adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".