Adolescents, African Americans, Attitude, Child, Community Health Workers, Health Literacy, Intention, Knowledge, Oral Health, Poverty, Self Efficacy
Conditions
Brief summary
Two arm study, experimental and control, to explore the impact of an online training program to help community health workers conduct effective outreach to support the dental health of African American youth via their caregivers.
Detailed description
The investigators will use a randomized, two-group, pretest/posttest design to test the efficacy of the GRIN prototype and explore the following research question: To what extent does exposure to the GRIN prototype relate to positive changes in CHWs' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, perceived self-efficacy, and intent to conduct oral health care outreach to low-income Black guardians? The community-driven nature of the project will ground the evaluation in the principles of an equitable evaluation that incorporates a racial equity lens. An equitable evaluation is an approach that addresses the dynamics and practices that have historically undervalued the voices, knowledge, expertise, capacity, and experiences of all evaluation participants and stakeholders, particularly people of color and other marginalized groups. This approach requires that evaluators engage in a process of ongoing self-reflection and adjustment, including a willingness to question and adapt traditional evaluation methods in response to stakeholder input. Working with communities to reflect the specific needs of their constituents, investigators will develop and enhance collaborations that leverage stakeholder expertise; minimize counter-productive duplications of services and resource expenditure; and create empowered opportunities for CHWs to conduct outreach with low-income Black guardians. The PI, with input from the SC, will develop necessary research materials, including the recruitment protocols, evaluation instrumentation, and human subjects consent materials, which then be reviewed against an equitable evaluation checklist, obtaining input on revisions from community members where needed. The PI will also outline the appropriate statistical analysis methods. All procedure documents will be reviewed by the KDHRC Institutional Review Board before the evaluation launch. The investigators will recruit participants through evaluation partners who will disseminate the study information to CHWs via electronic notifications and flyers. Evaluation partners include National Association of Community Health Workers (NACHW) and the University of Southern Mississippi College of Nursing and Health Professionals (see Letters of Support for more details). The notification will provide information about the goal of the study, participant eligibility, and a link to an interest and eligibility form. Once a potential participant completes the interest and eligibility form and s/he is eligible for the project, they will receive a link to a consent form located on a secure online platform. CHWs will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group after consent and enrollment in the study. All participants will complete an online pretest survey. The intervention group will be exposed to GRIN and will complete an online posttest survey two weeks after completing the GRIN modules. The control group participants will not be exposed to the GRIN program and will complete a posttest two weeks after completing the pretest. Participant responses to pretest and posttest survey measures will be linked using non-personal identifiers. The investigators will download and export the data from SurveyGizmo into an encrypted Excel file and import the raw data into STATA. The investigators will match the pretest and posttest responses using the random assigned identifiers and conduct analyses to test for the effect of GRIN exposure on changes in CHWs' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, self-efficacy, and intentions to conduct pediatric oral health care outreach to low-income Black guardians. The a priori feasibility criterion is: Statistically significant differences between pretest and posttest knowledge and self-efficacy measures among the intervention group participants.
Interventions
OTHERprofessional development training for CHWs on dental health (GRIN)
multi module online training
Sponsors
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
KDH Research & Communication
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 100 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Must be at least 18 years old. * Must self-identify as a community health worker. * Must conduct outreach to Black parents of children and adolescents. * Must have six months of field experience. KDHRC defines field experience as conducting outreach activities in their community, for example, working with clients in a clinic, conducting home visits, or educating clients at health fairs or community events * Must be an active CHW. KDHRC defines active as conducting outreach activities, such as working with clients in a clinic, conducting home visits, or educating clients at health fairs or community events, in the last six months. * Must have Internet access either at home or at work to access the the GRIN virtual education session and/or online surveys.
Exclusion criteria
-None
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Pretest Score | Baseline | We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100, the higher the score the more questions participants answered correctly. |
| Attitudes Pretest Score | Baseline | We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each answer choice rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest score and 10 being the highest. Higher score means better outcome. Then, we averaged these composite scores for each group. |
| Self-efficacy Pretest Score | Baseline | We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for both groups. |
| Intentions Pretest Score | Baseline | We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group. |
| Knowledge Posttest Score | Posttest (2 weeks after baseline) | We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores mean better outcome. |
| Attitudes Posttest Score | Posttest (2 weeks after baseline) | We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group. |
| Self-efficacy Posttest Score | Posttest (2 weeks after baseline) | We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group. |
| Intentions Posttest Score | Posttest (2 weeks after baseline) | We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction at Posttest Score | Baseline (2 weeks after baseline) | We asked only the intervention group participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. Each rating ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each intervention participant, then averaged these scores across the intervention group. Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores meaning better satisfaction/outcome. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Recruited participants from AHECS in MD, PA, TX, and the National Association of Community Health Workers.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training participates in the intervention
professional development training for CHWs on dental health (GRIN): multi module online training | 62 |
| Control/Unexposed no intervention | 45 |
| Total | 107 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 9 | 27 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Control/Unexposed | Total | Exposed to GRIN Training |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 43 Participants | 104 Participants | 61 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 16 Participants | 27 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 26 Participants | 74 Participants | 48 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Highest education level completed College degree | 22 Participants | 55 Participants | 33 Participants |
| Highest education level completed Highschool diploma/GED | 5 Participants | 6 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Highest education level completed Master's degree | 5 Participants | 10 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Highest education level completed Professional degree | 2 Participants | 5 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Highest education level completed Some college | 9 Participants | 29 Participants | 20 Participants |
| Length of time serving as a community health worker 1 to 2 years | 13 Participants | 31 Participants | 18 Participants |
| Length of time serving as a community health worker 3 to 4 years | 12 Participants | 21 Participants | 9 Participants |
| Length of time serving as a community health worker 5 or more years | 6 Participants | 26 Participants | 20 Participants |
| Length of time serving as a community health worker 6 to 11 months | 7 Participants | 14 Participants | 7 Participants |
| Length of time serving as a community health worker Less than 6 months | 5 Participants | 11 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Number of hours of community health worker training 11 to 15 hours | 1 Participants | 5 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Number of hours of community health worker training 16+ hours | 40 Participants | 90 Participants | 50 Participants |
| Number of hours of community health worker training 1 to 5 hours | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Number of hours of community health worker training 6 to 10 hours | 1 Participants | 3 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Number of hours of community health worker training None | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Paid or volunteer CHW position Both paid and volunteer | 7 Participants | 11 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Paid or volunteer CHW position Paid | 33 Participants | 88 Participants | 55 Participants |
| Paid or volunteer CHW position Volunteer | 3 Participants | 5 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Previously received training about oral health for children/adolescents Don't know | 2 Participants | 5 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Previously received training about oral health for children/adolescents No | 28 Participants | 71 Participants | 43 Participants |
| Previously received training about oral health for children/adolescents Yes | 13 Participants | 28 Participants | 15 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 2 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 16 Participants | 35 Participants | 19 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 7 Participants | 8 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 3 Participants | 6 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 14 Participants | 29 Participants | 15 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 35 Participants | 92 Participants | 57 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 8 Participants | 12 Participants | 4 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 62 | 0 / 45 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 62 | 0 / 45 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 62 | 0 / 45 |
Outcome results
Primary
Attitudes Posttest Score
We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.
Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Population: 16 treatment and 6 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Attitudes Posttest Score | 8.45 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.99 |
| Control/Unexposed | Attitudes Posttest Score | 8.62 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.67 |
p-value: 0.3995% CI: [-2.1, 5.34]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Attitudes Pretest Score
We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each answer choice rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest score and 10 being the highest. Higher score means better outcome. Then, we averaged these composite scores for each group.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: 11 treatment and 3 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Attitudes Pretest Score | 8.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.88 |
| Control/Unexposed | Attitudes Pretest Score | 8.60 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.85 |
p-value: 0.4795% CI: [-2.28, 4.89]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Intentions Posttest Score
We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.
Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Population: 6 treatment and 5 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Intentions Posttest Score | 8.38 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.77 |
| Control/Unexposed | Intentions Posttest Score | 8.10 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.2 |
p-value: 0.4995% CI: [-10.9, 5.23]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Intentions Pretest Score
We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: 10 treatment and 8 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Intentions Pretest Score | 7.39 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| Control/Unexposed | Intentions Pretest Score | 7.23 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.89 |
p-value: 0.7795% CI: [-12.61, 9.38]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Knowledge Posttest Score
We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Knowledge Posttest Score | 79.44 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.97 |
| Control/Unexposed | Knowledge Posttest Score | 67.22 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.83 |
p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-17.95, -6.47]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Knowledge Pretest Score
We asked participants 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores ranging from 0 to 100, the higher the score the more questions participants answered correctly.
Time frame: Baseline
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Knowledge Pretest Score | 64.92 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 20.03 |
| Control/Unexposed | Knowledge Pretest Score | 66.67 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 17.04 |
p-value: 0.6495% CI: [-5.57, 9.06]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Self-efficacy Posttest Score
We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for each group.
Time frame: Posttest (2 weeks after baseline)
Population: 3 treatment and 5 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Self-efficacy Posttest Score | 9.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.08 |
| Control/Unexposed | Self-efficacy Posttest Score | 8.48 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.75 |
p-value: <0.0195% CI: [-14.52, -3.24]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Self-efficacy Pretest Score
We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest possible score and 10 being the highest score. Higher scores mean better outcomes. Then, averaged these composite scores for both groups.
Time frame: Baseline
Population: 11 treatment and 2 control participants did not answer all of the individual outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average scores.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Self-efficacy Pretest Score | 8.16 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.9 |
| Control/Unexposed | Self-efficacy Pretest Score | 7.93 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.22 |
p-value: 0.5995% CI: [-10.77, 6.11]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
Satisfaction at Posttest Score
We asked only the intervention group participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. Each rating ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with the GRIN intervention. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each intervention participant, then averaged these scores across the intervention group. Scores ranged from 1 to 5, with higher scores meaning better satisfaction/outcome.
Time frame: Baseline (2 weeks after baseline)
Population: 28 treatment participants did not answer all of the individual satisfaction outcome questions and thus did not have composite scores included in the final average score.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Satisfaction at Posttest Score | 4.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.46 |
Post Hoc
Change in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest
We asked all participants seven Likert-type scale questions about attitudes towards conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of oral health outreach importance. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.
Time frame: From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Population: Lower numbers were analyzed for both groups in the regression analyses due to missing data in the control variables.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Change in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest | -0.07 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.27 |
| Control/Unexposed | Change in Attitude Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 0.05 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.86 |
p-value: 0.9295% CI: [-8.13, 8.99]Regression, Linear
Post Hoc
Change in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest
We asked all participants five Likert-type scale questions related to their intentions to conduct oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceived likelihood of providing oral health outreach in the future. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.
Time frame: From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Population: Lower numbers were analyzed for both groups in the regression analyses due to missing data in the control variables.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Change in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 0.68 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.29 |
| Control/Unexposed | Change in Intentions Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 1.13 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.09 |
p-value: 0.3995% CI: [-31.15, 12.56]Regression, Linear
Post Hoc
Change in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest
At both pretest and posttest, we asked all participants the same 12 multiple choice knowledge questions related to oral health, which we averaged to create a composite knowledge score for each participant ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 0 meant a participant got zero questions correct while a score of 100 meant a participant got all questions correct. We averaged these composite scores across all participants for both groups to create mean scores. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.
Time frame: From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Population: Lower numbers were analyzed for both groups in the regression analyses due to missing data in the control variables.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Change in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 14.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 17.98 |
| Control/Unexposed | Change in Knowledge Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 0.56 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.22 |
p-value: 0.1595% CI: [-2.92, 18.35]Regression, Linear
Post Hoc
Change in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest
We asked all participants 10 Likert-type scale questions related to perceived self-efficacy with conducting oral health outreach. Each rating ranged from 1 to 10, with higher ratings representing higher perceptions of confidence in providing oral health outreach. We averaged ratings from each question to create an average composite rating for each participant, then averaged these composite scores for both groups. We then subtracted pretest scores from posttest scores and averaged these changes for all participants as the dependent variable in multiple regression. Higher scores mean higher gains from baseline to posttest. We used group assignment (intervention or treatment) as the main independent variable while controlling for participant baseline characteristics and demographics.
Time frame: From baseline to posttest (2 weeks)
Population: Lower numbers were analyzed for both groups in the regression analyses due to missing data in the control variables.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed to GRIN Training | Change in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 1.14 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.24 |
| Control/Unexposed | Change in Self-efficacy Scores From Pretest to Posttest | 0.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1 |
p-value: 0.295% CI: [-4.17, 19.49]Regression, Linear