Improving Oral Health in Prisons (PriOH): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People living in prisons often experience poor oral health, which could be attributed to their limited access to (dental) care, financial constraints, and a general lack of awareness and prioritization toward their oral hygiene. A pilot study involving motivational interviewing (MI) has shown promising results for improving the oral health outcomes of people living in prisons. OBJECTIVE: The protocol for this study aims to assess the efficacy of integrated MI and oral hygiene packages in improving oral health among people living in prisons, compared to controls without added MI. METHODS: This oral health in prisons study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial that recruited inmates from 4 prisons in Rogaland County. The trial aimed to recruit 320 participants before randomly allocating them to either a control or intervention group. The intervention group received MI, consisting of a 30-minute session encouraging inmates to discuss their current and desired oral health behaviors and attitudes, highlighting discrepancies to motivate change. Assessments were conducted at 4 and 12 weeks after initiation. The primary outcome measurement is the mucosal-plaque scores to assess oral health behaviors, attitudes, and oral hygiene. Secondary outcome measurements are oral hygiene routines, sugary food and drink intake, oral health perception, and oral health-related questions. RESULTS: Data collection started in November 2021 and ended in June 2023. A total of 327 participants were recruited, of which 126 received the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating MI in oral health programs at prisons can significantly improve the oral health of incarcerated individuals. Should the results from this study demonstrate efficacy, it could be valuable insight for policy makers, oral health practitioners, and correctional services in addressing the needs of a traditionally underserved group before being scaled up to enhance dental care practices in prisons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05695443; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05695443. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60817.
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 | 0.043 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.018 |
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".