1http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8656579 Volume 19 2020 e206579 Original Article 1 PhD of Health Education and Health Promotion, Shemiranat Health Network, Health Deputy Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. 2 Department of Public Health, School of Health, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran. 3 Health Sciences Research Center, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran. 4 Health Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Corresponding author: Dr. Mohammad Hossein Delshad 7th Floor, Bldg No.2 SBUMS, Arabi Ave, Daneshjoo Blvd, Velenjak, Tehran, Iran. (delshad@sbmu.ac.ir) P.O. BOX: 19839-63113 Tel:+98 (21) 22211882 Fax: +98 (21) 22211882 Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. No 213, Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Ghisa st., Jalae Ale Ahmd Ave, Tehran, Iran. P.O. BOX: 14115-111 Tel:+98 (21) 82880000 Fax: +98 (21) 82880000 mail:delshad@sbmu.ac.ir Received: September 07, 2019 Accepted: April 07, 2020 Factors predicting the oral health behaviors of the Iranian students in the District 1 Tehran, Iran Fatemeh Pourhaji1,2,3 , Mohammad Hossein Delshad1,2,3* , Sedigheh Sadat Tavafian4 , Alireza Hidarnia4 , Shamsodin Niknami4 Aim: The purpose of this examination is determining the predictors of oral health behaviors among Iranian students in district 1 Tehran based on the health belief model with added commitment to plan construct. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 351 four grade female students in the first district of Tehran, Iran in 2017. The multi‑stage random cluster sampling method was used to recruit students. The inclusion criteria were being in four – graded level of elementary schools of the 1st district in Tehran, being female students aged between 9-11 years and being physically and psychologically healthy student. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the variables that predict oral health behaviors. Results: Totally, (N= 31.8%) students reported that they were brushing less than twice a day and (N= 55.2%) students claimed using of dental floss once a week or less than once a day. The results indicated that perceived self‑efficacy (OR=1.46, 95% CI=0.57‑3.78, P<0.001), commitment to plan (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.04‑1.23, P<0.001) and cues to action (OR=1.42, 95% CI=1.14–1.76, P=0.002) were the significant predicting variables of brushing twice a day, and use of dental floss once a day or more (OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.23‑3.53, P=0.003). Conclusion: This study has shown the effectiveness of the health belief model with added commitment to plan construct to predict oral health behavior in female students. Thus, it seems that the model as a acceptable framework for designing training programs to improve oral health behavior in students. Keywords: Health Behavior. Health Education, Dental. Iran. Oral health. Students. Tel:+98 (21) 82884547 Tel:+98 (21) 82884547 Tel:+98 (21) 82884547 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-5307 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3512-9010 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2842-7172 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1534-4757 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8179-5719 2 Pourhaji F et al. Introduction Oral disorders are the most common health problems. Studies have shown that one of the commonest problems of early life is dental caries and oral diseases. Oral health is a part of the public health and essential issue to enhancing the quality of life1. De Faria Campestrini et al.2 study shows that it is not enough to merely convey informa- tion about the functions of the oral cavity and describe the characteristics of diseases that affect it when attempting to develop healthy public attitudes toward health habits and it is needed educational preventive programs2.Primarily based on this fact that prevention and training are the satisfactory manners of promoting oral health collec- tively, it has been argued that extra prematurely preventive measures and interruption on disease evolution could be more effective3. Distribution and severity of oral conditions vary in different parts of the world and this is also real for specific geographic conditions within the equal country or area3. According to a countrywide oral health survey which performed in 2012, indicated a high level of carries inside the primary dentition and the mean DMFT (full) index rated as 5.16/0.38 in 6-year-old children4. Behavioral factors are shown as the best care in early childhood period..Brushing and flossing are the very best methods to reduce the incidence of plaque5. In addition, health education is considered a critical method for health promotion- through voluntary wonderful adjustments of individuals within healthy life. Addition- ally health education can improve familiar and community behavior, producing polit- ical behaviors that allow the development of new strategies to promote health and enhance the quality of lifestyles of the population6-7.The implementation and effec- tiveness of educational preventive programs have become important because of the perception of risk factors for oral diseases, knowledge acquisition and consequently behavioral changes7. In health education; the use of models and theories of health behavior to designing interventions is recommended because they can cause powerful health education programs. In fact, the models provide a framework for expertise regarding how peo- ple analyze healthy messages and the way they behave and why humans behave as they distinguish8.The Health Belief Model(HBM) is a comprehensive model that can be used for organizing educations. The HBM is one of the first models which were advanced for regulating health-related behaviors9. On this version there are specific patterns of social‑cognitive predictors can also appear (Figure 1) the con- struct of “Commitment to Plan of Action” from “Health Promotion Model Added to HBM model. The model assumes that different factors, consisting of the perceived severity of health trouble, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers preventing people from assignment preventive behaviors, affect health related beliefs and behaviors10.The purpose of this examination is determining predictors of oral health behaviors like teeth brushing and dental floss rate in Iranian students in district 1 Tehran based on HBM with added commitment to plan construct. 3 Pourhaji F et al. Materials and methods Study design and participants This was a cross-sectional study which was conducted on the grade four female stu- dents (9‑11 years) of schools in the first district of Tehran on April 21, 2017, for 2 months. To obtain samples from 33,179 female students (grade four) studying in this Urban-rural, a Multi-stage random cluster sampling method was used. In the first stage, out of 162 schools (145 urban schools and 17 rural schools), 10 schools [urban schools (N=6) and rural schools (N=4)] were randomly selected. In the second stage, from351 students based on the population rate of each school in the sample of each school were randomly selected. According to dropping 43 students totally 308 eligible students were selected (Table 1). The inclusion criteria were being in four – graded level of elementary schools of the 1st district in Tehran, being female students aged between 9-11 yearsand being physically and psychologically healthy student. The exclusion criterion was student or parent’s disagreement to be studied or not to responding to the study questionnaire (Figure 2). The researcher was available while completing the questionnaire to help the students. The students were educated to answer truly. To assess the predictors of brushing, and use of dental floss, all the Health Promotion Model added to HBM model constructs (Figure 1) were examined as risk factors which could influence the probability of occurrence brush- ing, and use of dental floss and were interpreted through odds ratio (OR). The odds ratio was used to determine whether particular exposures like HPM added to HBM model constructs could be risk factors for occurrence of the outcome like behaviors. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the variables that predict oral health behaviors. To determine the relationship between different HPM added HBM model constructs with each other and with brushing, and use of dental floss behavior, R Spearman was used because K‑S test showed the data were non‑parametric. To predict the factors influencing brushing, and use of dental floss behavior logistic regression analysis was applied. Figure 1. Flow Diagram of the expanded Health Belief Model with the construct of “Commitment to Plan of Action” from “Health Promotion Model. Age Gender Ethnicity Personality Socieconomics Knowledge Perceived threat Perceived benefits Perceived barriers Perceived self-efficacy Modifying Factors Perceived susceptibility to and severity of disease Individual Beliefs Individual behaviors Cues to action Commiment to Plan of Action Action 4 Pourhaji F et al. Results Totally, 308 students took part in the study. The mean age of the subjects was 9.32 ± 0.8 years. The demographic variables of the study population are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. About 31.8% of the students (n =98) reported that they were brushing behavior less than twice a day, and 170 students (55.2%) reported that they brushed their teeth once a week or after using dental floss or less than once a day. While 210 students (68.2%) reported that they brushed at least twice a day, 138 students (44.8%) reported that they were using dental floss at least once a day. The results indicated that perceived self‑efficacy (OR=1.46, 95% CI=0.57‑3.78, P<0.001), Commitment to plan (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.04‑1.23, P<0.001) and cues to action (OR=1.42, 95% CI=1.14–1.76, P=0.002) were the significant predicting variables which is the key predictor of brushing twice a day, and use of dental floss once a day or more (OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.23-3.53, P=0.003). First stage The recognition of effective demographic variables on oral health behaviors Chi-square statistics was used. The related data are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Based on the results given in Table 1, the father’s educational level (p=0.03), and income (P = 0.04) had a significant relationship with the students’ brushing behavior. Figure 2. Flow diagram of student’s recruitment. 10 schools, out of 162 schools (145 urban schools and 17 rural schools) Randomized Multi stage cluster sampling Out of 162 schools with 33,179 female students (grade four) Total students (N=351) From 10 schools [Urban schools (N=248) Rural schools (N=103)] Assessed for eligibility and Analyzed (n=308) Urban schools (N=6) Rural schools (N=4) Urban schools (N=215) Rural schools (N=93) Declined to participate (n=43) 5 Pourhaji F et al. The children’s use of dental floss was significantly related to the father’s job (P = 0.04), father’s educational level (P = 0.03) (Table 2). Using a logistic model for testing, the effect of six structures of HBM and demographic variables had a significant relationship with oral health behaviors. Tables 3& 4 show the data used in the model. In order to find out the relationship between oral health behavior and independent variables, simple and multiple logistic regression analyses were carried out with structures of HBM and demographic variables that were signif- icant. Mother’s education (P =0.005), income (P =0.007), self efficacy, commitment to plan (P <0.001) and cues to action (P =0.003) predicted the students’ behavior of dental floss using at least twice a day (Tables 3). However, after adjustment, only perceived self‑efficacy, commitment to plan, cues to action remained significant, so that one unit increase in perceived self efficacy increased the possibility of teeth brushing behavior at least twice a day by 1.42 times, commitment to plan by 1.02 times cues to action by times. Table 1. Demographic characteristics affecting of the students brushing behavior Demographic variables Brushing frequency Less than twice a day Twice a day or more N (%) N (%) 98(31.8) 210(68.2) Father’s educational level Primary 20(20.4) 54(25.7) High school 35(35.7) 66(31.4) Higher educational 43(43.9) 90(42.9) P-value 0.03 Mother’s educational level Primary 23(23.5) 43(20.5) High school 31(31.6) 80(38.1) Higher educational 44(44.9) 87(41.4) P-value 0.07 Father’s job Private 75(76.6) 147(70) Employee 23(23.4) 63(30) P-value 0.08 Mother’s job Un Employed 50(51) 110(52.4) Employed 48(49) 100(47.6) P-value 0.1 Income Low 10(10.2) 16(7.6) Appropriate 13(13.3) 17(8.1) Well 16(16.3) 87(41.4) Excellent 59(60.2) 90(42.9) P-value 0.04 6 Pourhaji F et al. The results showed that the students’ use of dental floss behavior was significantly related to the mother’s job (P = 0.006), father’s educational level (P = 0.004), income (P = 0.007) perceived self efficacy (P < 0.001), commitment to plan (P < 0.001), and cues to action (P = 0.003). When they were separately entered into the model (Table 4) nevertheless, after adjustment, mother’s job (P = 0.012) and self efficacy (P = 0.016) and cues to action (P = 0.002) were found to be significantly related to the use of dental floss once a day or more. The increase of perceived self efficacy by one unit, the possibility of using dental floss at least once a day would increase by 1.30 times (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.99-2.34, P = 0.016). Discussion The current survey was designed to investigate the predictors to oral health behaviors in Iranian students in district 1 Tehran based on the health belief model with added commitment to plan construct. Consistent with this examine findings, other research Table 2. Demographic characteristics affecting of the students dental floss using Demographic variables Dental floss frequency Once a week or less than once a day Once a day or more N (%) N (%) 170(55.2) 138(44.8) Father’s educational level Primary 38(22.4) 34(24.6) High school 65(38.2) 48(34.8) Higher educational 67(39.4) 56(40.6) P-value 0.03 Mother’s educational level Primary 33(19.4) 33(23.9) High school 67(39.4) 47(34) Higher educational 70(41.2) 58(42.1) P-value 0.5 Father’s job Private 164(96) 89(64.5) Employee 126(74) 49(35.5) P-value 0.04 Mother’s job Un employed 115(67.6) 73(52.9) Employed 55(32.4) 65(47.1) P-value 0.8 Income Low 30(17.7) 24(17.4) Appropriate 32(18.8) 22(15.9) Well 31(18.2) 24(17.4) Excellent 77(45.3) 68(49.3) P-value 0.2 7 Pourhaji F et al. has mentioned a significant relationship between the education level of mother and father As Aggarwal et al.11 study. Contrary to the Pourhaji et al.8 study that showed there was no significant relationship between education level and oral health behav- iors1, a significant relationship between income, father’s job, dental floss behavior and brushing behavior in students same as Phanthavong et al.12 study. This study indicated that perceived self‑efficacy, cues to action, and commitment to plan were the significant predictors which is the key factor of teeth brushing and brushing behavior at least twice a day, use of dental floss and brushing behavior once a day or more. According to the data, respectively the study carried out by Rahnama et al.13 study and Hazavei et al.14 study showed that self‑efficacy, cues to action had the highest percent of total variance observed in dental health behaviors. Table 3. Factors predicting brushing behavior at least twice a day among of students Brushing behavior B Simple OR (95% CI) P-Value B Multiple OR (95% CI) P-Value Mother’s educational level 0.005 0.108 Primary 0.16 1 (0.40-2.51) 1.32 0.19 1.14(0.54-2.65) 0.26 High school 0.47 1.60(0.92-2.78) 0.63 0.38 1.46(0.57-3.78) 0.02 Higher educational 0.57 1.78(0.66-4.74) 0.01 0.52 1.65(0.97-2.83) 0.01 Income 0.008 0.123 Low 0.18 1.12(0.52-2.63) 0.12 0.15 1.01(0.53-1.90) 0.24 Appropriate 0.23 1.24(1.14-1.38) 0.18 0.20 1.13(0.53-2.64) 0.18 Well 0.28 1.36(0.47-3.68) 0.02 0.25 1.18(0.41-2.59) 0.01 Self-efficacy 0.38 1.46(0.57-3.78) <0.001 0.35 1.42(1.14-1.76) 0.012 Commitment to plan 0.18 1.13(1.04-1.23) <0.001 0.15 1.02(0.36-2.52) 0.014 Cues to action 0.16 1.02(0.23-3.53) 0.003 0.12 1 (0.87-1.26) 0.023 OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval Table 4. Factors predicting use dental floss behavior at least once a day among of students Dental floss behavior B Simple OR (95% CI) P-Value B Multiple OR (95% CI) P-Value Mother’s job 0.006 0.012 Father’s educational level 0.004 0.113 Primary 0.18 1.20(0.54-2.70) 0.61 1.19 0.78(0.37-1.69) 0.23 High school 0.47 1.60(0.92-2.78) 0.01 0.28 1.36(0.47-2.68) 0.01 Higher educational 2.61 0.74(0.33-1.65) 0.03 0.52 1.65(0.97-2.83) 0.01 Income 0.007 0.104 Low -0.56 0.56(0.18-1.72) 0.31 0.45 1.31(0.83-2.43) 0.28 Appropriate -0.034 0.96(0.31-3.01) 0.95 0.20 1.15(0.55-2.66) 0.23 Well 0.13 1.14(0.35-3.65) 0.81 0.21 1.12(0.35-2.53) 0.01 Self-efficacy 0.53 1.78(0.66-4.74) <0.001 0.36 1.30(0.99-2.34) 0.016 Commitment to plan 0.18 1.13(1.043-1.23) <0.001 0.15 0.89(0.38-1.54) 0.21 Cues to action 0.16 1.02(0.23-3.53) 0.003 0.14 1.02(0.89-3.44) 0.002 OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval 8 Pourhaji F et al. However, there was a constrained correlation between oral health perceptions and elevated perceived benefits in Solhi et al.15 study. Buglar et al. study on the role of self efficacy in dental patients’ brushing and flossing, found that, barriers emerging, and self efficacy significantly predicted brushing and flossing behaviors16. However, like the current study it had no significant relation with perceived benefits and in contrast to current study with no relation to cues to action17. Theses differences might be due to different gender and age rangeof the participants. Within the Reisi et al. study, besides to perceived barriers (with negative correlation), all con- structs of HBM were definitely associated with oral health behaviors. Self‑efficacy was the most powerful predictor of oral health behavior18. The Kasmaei et al. findings recommend that perceived objective severity and perceived psychological barriers play an important position in adopting acceptable health behavior among younger young people19. Moreover, according to the present study, numerous researches have revealed that commitment to plan has been as the best predictor variable for actual oral health behaviors19-20.Therefore, strategies for enhancing commitment to plan in practice, such as strengthening self-extinguishing techniques, enhance commitment, pursuit of commitment and focus groups discussion could lead to more effective oral health behaviors programs for Iranian students and should be considered in future inter- vention20-21.These programs could propose that highly commitment to plan individ- uals exert greater efforts to empowering individuals to prevent them from returning to unhealthy behavior22. Pender stated that more commitment to plan could have a much impact on continuing health promotion behaviors23. In this study, the variables of cues to action with a positive relationship were demon- strated to be significant predictors for oral health behaviors among the Iranian stu- dents. This finding is supported by many previous studies which found that cues to action are stimuli that trigger appropriate health behaviors. Cues to action can be either internal, that is, the perception of bodily states, or external, that is, stimuli from the environment, such as interpersonal interactions or the mass media24-25.In the cur- rent study, there was also a relationship between self‑efficacy and oral health behav- iors. Similar to the present study, self‑efficacy was the most predictive factors of oral health behaviors. These results are consistent with previous studies26-28. There are several limitations to this study. First, this study was a cross-sectional design in addition to assessing oral health behaviors as self-report, in which humans typically might record the behavior better than the real amount. Furthermore, the sample of this study were selected from volunteered individuals, so that it’s results might not be gener- alized to all Iranian student groups. In this study, psychological tests for the studied par- ticipants were not done. Therefore, it is suggested to consider this assessment in future studies to see if there would be some correlations with the prediction of the behavior. This study has shown the effectiveness of the health belief model with added commit- ment to plan construct to predict oral health behavior in female students. herefore, it seems that the model as a framework for designing training programs to improve oral health behavior can be used. The finding of this study provides needed data assisting the development of model-based behavioral prevention interventions to encourage students’ oral health behavior. 9 Pourhaji F et al. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank all the participants who took part in the study. The authors also thank research deputy of Shahid Beheshti University for its financial sup- port for this study (IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1396.625). Finance/Disclosure None declared. Conflict of Interest “The authors acclaimed that they have no rivaling interests”. References 1. Peyman N, Pourhaji F. The effects of educational program based on the health belief model on the oral health behaviors of elementary school students. Mod Carev J. 2015;12(2):74-8. 2. de Faria Campestrini NT, da Cunha BM, de Oliveira Kublitski PM, Kriger L, Caldarelli PG, Gabardo MCL. [Educational activities in oral health developed by dental surgeons with schoolchildren: a systematic review of the literature]. Rev ABENO. 2020 Jan;19(4):46-54. doi: 10.30979/rev.abeno.v19i4.886. Portuguese. 3. de Arruda Régis-Aranha L, dos Santos STC, Magalhães WOG, Pinto ABS, de Araújo Passos SM, Monteiro ÂX. Dental caries and visual acuity of students in a town in west amazon. Braz J Oral Sci. 2018;17:e18159. doi: 10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8653816. 4. Babaei A, Pakdaman A, Hessari H, Shamshiri AR. Oral health of 6–7 year-old children according to the Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) index. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jan 17;19(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0709-x. 5. Tiwari BS, Ankola AV, Jalihal S, Patil P, Sankeshwari RM, Kashyap BR. Effectiveness of different oral health education interventions in visually impaired school children. Spec Care Dent. 2019 Mar;39(2):97-107. doi: 10.1111/scd.12356. 6. Zeeberg C, Puello SCP, Batista MJ, de Sousa MdLR. Effectiveness of a preventive oral health program in preschool children. Braz J Oral Sci. 2018;17:e18063. doi: 10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652647. 7. Fertman CI, Allensworth DD. Health promotion programs: from theory to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. 8. Pourhaji F, Vahedian Shahroodi M, Esmaily H. Effects of training program-based on Stage of change Model to promote Breast self-examination behavior. Avicenna J Nurs Midwifery Care. 2013;21(4):59-68. 9. Almadi MA, Alghamdi F. The gap between knowledge and undergoing colorectal cancer screening using the Health Belief Model: A national survey. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan-Feb;25(1):27-39. doi: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_455_18.. 10. Rakhshanderou S, Hatami H, Delbarpoor-Ahmadi S. Predictors of Preventive Nutritional Behaviors of Cardiovascular Diseases among Women Referred to Community Health Centers of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Based on the Health Belief Model. Community Health (Salāmat‑i ijtimāī). 2019;6(1):61‑9. doi: 10.22037/ch.v6i1.21813. 11. Aggarwal T, Goswami M, Dhillon JK. Assessment of Oral Health Educational Program on oral health status of visually impaired children in New Delhi. Spec Care Dent. 2019 Mar;39(2):140-6. doi: 10.1111/scd.12354. 10 Pourhaji F et al. 12. Phanthavong S, Nonaka D, Phonaphone T, Kanda K, Sombouaphan P, Wake N, et al. Oral health behavior of children and guardians’ beliefs about children’s dental caries in Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). PloS One. 2019 Jan;14(1):e0211257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211257. 13. Rahmati-Najarkolaei F, Rahnama P, Fesharaki MG, Yahaghi H, Yaghoubi M. Determinants of Dental Health Behaviors of Iranian Students Based on the Health Belief Model (HBM). Shiraz E-Med J. 2016 Aug;17(7-8). doi: 10.17795/semj39268. 14. Hazavei SMM, SOHRABI VM, Moeini B, Soltanian AR, Rezaei L. Assessment of oral–dental health status: using Health Belief Model (HBM) in first grade guidance school students in Hamadan. Jundishapur J Halth Sci. 2012 Fall;4(3):65-75. 15. Solhi M, Zadeh DS, Seraj B, Zadeh SF. The application of the health belief model in oral health education. Iran J Public Health. 2010;39(4):114-9. 16. Buglar ME, White KM, Robinson NG. The role of self‑efficacy in dental patients’ brushing and flossing: testing an extended Health Belief Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):269‑72. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.014. 17. Ramezankhani A, Mazaheri M, Dehdari T, Movahedi M. Relationship between health belief model constructs and DMFT among five‑grade boy students in the primary school in Dezfool. Scientific Medical Journal/Majalleh Elmi Peseshki Daneshgahe Elome Pezeshki Ahwaz. Jundishapur Sci Med J. 2011;10(2):221-8. 18. Reisi M, Javadzade SH, Shahnazi H, Sharifirad G, Charkazi A, Moodi M. Factors affecting cigarette smoking based on health-belief model structures in pre-university students in Isfahan, Iran. J Educ Health Promot. 2014 Feb;3:23. doi: 10.4103/2277-9531.127614. 19. Kasmaei P, Shokravi FA, Hidarnia A, Hajizadeh E, Atrkar-Roushan Z, Shirazi KK, et al. Brushing behavior among young adolescents: does perceived severity matter. BMC Public Health. 2014 Jan;14:8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-8. 20. Ackley BJ, Ladwig GB, Msn R, Makic MBF, Martinez-Kratz M, Zanotti M. Nursing diagnosis handbook e-book: an evidence-based guide to planning care. Mosby; 2019. 21. Arnold EC. Communication strategies for health promotion and disease prevention. interpersonal relationships e-book: professional communication skills for nurses. Saint Louis: Elsevier; 2019:262. 22. Housman J, Odum M. Alters and schiff essential concepts for healthy living. Jones & Bartlett; 2019. 23. Srof BJ, Velsor-Friedrich B. Health promotion in adolescents: a review of Pender’s health promotion model. Nurs Sci Q. 2006 Oct;19(4):366-73. doi: 10.1177/0894318406292831. 24. Feuerstein M, Labbé EE, Kuczmierczyk AR. Health psychology: A psychobiological perspective. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013. 25. Champion VL, Skinner CS. The health belief model. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 4. ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2008, p. 45‑65. 26. Albright DL, Godfrey K, McDaniel JT, Fletcher KL, Thomas KH, Bertram J, et al. Oral health among student veterans: Effects on mental and physical health. J Am Coll Health. 2020 Apr;68(3):263-70. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1540985. 27. Berniyanti T, Bramantoro T, Palupi R, Wening GRS, Kusumo AD. Epidemiological investigation of caries level in 2nd and 3rd grader primary school student. J Int Oral Health. 2019;11(7):44-7. doi: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_258_18. 28. Rachmawati YL, Maharani DA, Oho T. Cross‐cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Indonesia version of the self‐efficacy oral health questionnaire for adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019 May;29(3):345-51. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12472.