Knowledge, attitude and practices towards oral health among secondary school students in Huye district, Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Good oral health knowledge is considered to be crucial for health-related practices and better oral hygiene. Objective: This study was aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes and practices towards oral health among secondary student in Huye district. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 386 students from public secondary schools with advanced level. Boarding secondary schools were excluded. Stratified Clustering sampling technique was used for selecting study participants. A closed ended questionnaire was used for collecting data. Results were found on the basis of percentage and frequency using SPSS 21.0 version. Results: The majority of participants, 222 (57.5%) were female and 164 (42.5%) were male. The majority of the participants, 168 (43.5%) were between 15-17 years old. Out of the total population of students 1.8% had good knowledge, 56.2% had average knowledge and 42% had poor knowledge about oral health. Moreover, 56.2% had negative and 43.8% had positive oral health attitudes and overall practice towards oral hygiene of students showed that 74.6 % had poor practice and 24.4% had good practices. Conclusion: Oral hygiene has to be long life practice and oral health education have to be included as part of the school environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".