Associations between perceived self‐efficacy and oral health behaviours in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Self-efficacy is a strong health predictor as it affects patients' certainty about their ability to perform recommended behaviours to improve their health. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between perceived self-efficacy and oral health behaviours among adolescents. METHODS: A convenience sample of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old was recruited from the University of Alberta dental clinic. Demographics, oral health behaviours, self-rated oral health and task-specific and general self-efficacy were assessed using a questionnaire with three sections. For the comparisons of outcomes across different categories, Student t-test, multivariate regression and chi-squared tests were used. RESULTS: A total of 252 adolescents with average (SD) age of 14 (1.7) years participated in the study; 60% were girls; 81% were born in Canada; 56% were White; and 61% had dental coverage. Demographic characteristics had no significant correlation with general self-efficacy. However, correlation coefficients indicated that younger adolescents had higher dietary self-efficacy (negative correlation), girls had higher toothbrushing and dental visit self-efficacy, and those with dental coverage had higher dental visit self-efficacy. A significant association was found between toothbrushing, dietary habits and dental visits self-efficacy (subscales of task-specific self-efficacy) and their respective outcomes (frequency of toothbrushing, sugar intake and regular dentist visits). General self-efficacy was significantly associated with frequency of toothbrushing and participant's self-rated oral health. CONCLUSION: Higher task-specific and general self-efficacy correlated with better oral health behaviours among adolescents. Therefore, behavioural interventions should be designed to enhance self-efficacy among adolescents in order to improve their oral health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".