Assessment of the Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Nurses and Midwives Working at Antenatal Clinics in the Southern Province of Rwanda on Periodontal Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peace Uwambaye,1 Cyprien Munyanshongore,2 Michael Kerr,3 Harlan Shiau,4 Gerard Nyiringango,5 Stephen Rulisa6 1Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda; 2Department of Community Health, University of Rwanda College of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Kigali, Rwanda; 3Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; 4Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, Division of Periodontics, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA; 5Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Rwanda College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Kigali, Rwanda; 6Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine and Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, RwandaCorrespondence: Peace UwambayeDepartment of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, RwandaTel +250788505856Email upeace1602@gmail.comIntroduction: Oral health is considered an important component of general health; the mouth cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the body. Studies indicate an association between periodontitis and preterm and lowbirth weight outcomes. One of the opportunities to improve the oral health care of pregnant women during antenatal care consultations is through collaboration with nurses and midwives. It can be of importance if nurses/midwives are equipped with the right knowledge, attitude and practices regarding oral health. Therefore, this study assessed the existing knowledge, attitude and practices of nurse/midwives working in antenatal clinics in 12 selected health facilities in the Southern Province of Rwanda on periodontal diseases.Patients and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was done on 79 nurses and midwives working at antenatal care clinics and maternity wards. An ANOVA test was used to compare knowledge, attitude and practices mean scores of nurses/midwives about periodontal diseases and their management. A correlation test was also used to ascertain the relationship among knowledge, attitude, practices and other continuous variables.Results: The average age of nurses/midwives was M=33.57, SD=6.1. Nurses had limited knowledge about oral health of pregnant women and had some misunderstandings about oral health, although they had good attitudes. Age, length of service as a nurse or midwife and length of service in antenatal care had no effect on the knowledge, practice and attitude scores of the nurses/midwives. The ANOVA test did not find any significant difference in means for knowledge, attitude, practice and education level (p=0.69, 0.93, 0.27), respectively.Conclusion: Although nurses/midwives have good attitude regarding the management of periodontal diseases of pregnant women, their knowledge is insufficient and it is highly recommended that oral diseases can be included in their curriculum so that they can be in the best position to advise/screen for periodontal diseases during pregnancy.Keywords: knowledge, attitude, practice, oral health, pregnancy
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".