2017
DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of an oral health literacy intervention among Indigenous Australian adults

Abstract: A context-specific oral health literacy intervention was partially successful in improving oral health literacy and oral health literacy-related outcomes in this vulnerable population, but only after MI.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
79
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
79
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the study, a handful of oral health literacy intervention studies have been published. Ju et al [31] tested the efficacy of an oral health literacy intervention based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory to enhance oral health literacy among indigenous Australian adults and concluded that the intervention was partially successful in improving oral health literacy and oral health-literacy related outcomes after multiple imputations. Vilella et al [32] evaluated the effect of oral health literacy on the retention of health information in pregnant women.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the study, a handful of oral health literacy intervention studies have been published. Ju et al [31] tested the efficacy of an oral health literacy intervention based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory to enhance oral health literacy among indigenous Australian adults and concluded that the intervention was partially successful in improving oral health literacy and oral health-literacy related outcomes after multiple imputations. Vilella et al [32] evaluated the effect of oral health literacy on the retention of health information in pregnant women.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…42 The eta squared (η 2 ) was equal to 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 could be interpreted as having small, medium and large differences, respectively. 43 The large effect size was found in the studies of Ju et al (d = 1.85), 31 Epstein et al (η 2 = 0.34), 34 Nayiga et al (d = 0.99) 38 and Helitzer et al (g = 0.86). 39 The medium effect size was found only in the study of Hjertstedt et al (d = 0.64).…”
Section: Effect Sizesmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…A total of 944 references were excluded, and 122 full-text references were included and checked in terms of the eligibility criteria. The nine studies [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] were included in the methodological quality assessment.…”
Section: Re Sultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations