Front. Oral Health Frontiers in Oral Health Front. Oral Health 2673-4842 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/froh.2025.1664267 Correction Correction: Oral community health worker-led interventions in households with average levels of psychosocial factors LeeHelen H. 1 2 * Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing AvenettiDavid 2 3 Writing – review & editing EdomwandeYuwa 2 Writing – review & editing SundararajanVyshiali 2 Writing – review & editing CuiLiyong 2 Writing – review & editing BerbaumMichael 2 Writing – review & editing NordgrenRachel 2 Writing – review & editing SandovalAnna 2 Writing – review & editing MartinMolly A. 2 4 Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Department of Anesthesiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States Department of Pediatrics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States Correspondence: Helen H. Lee leehelen@uic.edu 20112025 2025 61664267 11072025 20102025 © 2025 Lee, Avenetti, Edomwande, Sundararajan, Cui, Berbaum, Nordgren, Sandoval and Martin. 2025Lee, Avenetti, Edomwande, Sundararajan, Cui, Berbaum, Nordgren, Sandoval and Martinhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. community health worker oral health psychosocial stress childhood parenting section-at-acceptanceOral Health Promotion A Correction on Oral community health worker-led interventions in households with average levels of psychosocial factors By Lee HH, Avenetti D, Edomwande Y, Sundararajan V, Cui L, Berbaum M, Nordgren R, Sandoval A and Martin MA (2022). Front. Oral. Health. 3:962849. doi: 10.3389/froh.2022.962849

There is an error in scale calculation regarding the PROMIS Social functioning variable. Recorded scores were incorrectly inverted, resulting in the final calculated scores reflecting the opposite direction of what was intended. When rerun using the correct scoring, the analysis results including this variable did not change. Our corrections are to correct the actual values reported in Table 2 and Figure 3.

There were mistakes in Table 2 as published (inserted below)

BaselineN = 422 6 monthsN = 366 12 monthsN = 362
PROMIS anxiety T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 46.6 (8.1);40.3 (40.3–77.9, 13.4) 46.7 (8.4);40.3 (40.3–81.6, 13.4) 46.9 (8.2);40.3 (40.3–81.6, 13.4)
PROMIS depression T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 46.2 (6.9);1.0 (41.0–71.2, 10.8) 45.7 (6.8);41.0 (41.0–79.4, 8.0) 45.7 (6.5);41.0 (41.0–69.4, 10.8)
PROMIS social functioning T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 32.0 (6.9);31.3 (25.9–58.2, 10.3) 32.1 (6.7);31.3 (25.9–55.7, 11.0) 32.7 (6.9);31.3 (25.9–58.2, 11.8)
PROMIS emotional T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 55.9 (8.9);57.8 (24.7–63.5, 14.3) 56.0 (8.8);60.7 (32.5–63.5, 14.3) 56.6 (8.3);63.5 (24.7–63.5, 14.3)
PROMIS informational T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 57.7 (9.8);58.7 (27.1–69.1, 17.9) 58.0 (10.0);58.7 (23.7–69.1, 19.0) 59.1 (9.5);60.3 (31.8–69.1, 16.7)
PROMIS instrumental T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR)a 54.8 (9.3);55.4 (31.1–65.6, 18.4) 55.2 (9.4);55.4 (31.1–65.6, 18.4) 55.5 (9.5);55.4 (27.0–65.6, 18.4)
CHAOS total (avg), mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 2.3 (0.6);2.2 (1.0–4.5, 0.8) 2.3 (0.6);2.2 (1.0–4.2, 1.0) 2.3 (0.6);2.3 (1.0–4.3, 1.0)

Values for the PROMIS Social Functioning T-scores, mean (SD), median (range, IQR) were incorrect, as well as the N for Baseline.

The corrected Table 2 appears below.

BaselineN = 420 6 monthsN = 366 12 monthsN = 362
PROMIS anxiety T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 46.6 (8.1);40.3 (40.3–77.9, 13.4) 46.7 (8.4);40.3 (40.3–81.6, 13.4) 46.9 (8.2);40.3 (40.3–81.6, 13.4)
PROMIS depression T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 46.2 (6.9);41.0 (41.0–71.2, 10.8) 45.7 (6.8);41.0 (41.0–79.4, 8.0) 45.7 (6.5);41.0 (41.0–69.4, 10.8)
PROMIS social functioning T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 58.0 (8.1);58.2 (31.3–65.4, 12.7) 57.8 (8.0);58.2 (33.6–65.4, 13.7) 57.1 (8.1);58.2 (31.3–65.4, 14.6)
PROMIS emotional T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 55.9 (8.9);57.8 (24.7–63.5, 14.3) 56.0 (8.8);60.7 (32.5–63.5, 14.3) 56.6 (8.3);63.5 (24.7–63.5, 14.3)
PROMIS informational T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 57.7 (9.8);58.7 (27.1–69.1, 17.9) 58.0 (10.0);58.7 (23.7–69.1, 19.0) 59.1 (9.5);60.3 (31.8–69.1, 16.7)
PROMIS instrumental T-score, mean (SD);median (range, IQR)a 54.8 (9.3);55.4 (31.1–65.6, 18.4) 55.2 (9.4);55.4 (31.1–65.6, 18.4) 55.5 (9.5);55.4 (27.0–65.6, 18.4)
CHAOS total (avg), mean (SD);median (range, IQR) 2.3 (0.6);2.2 (1.0–4.5, 0.8) 2.3 (0.6);2.2 (1.0–4.2, 1.0) 2.3 (0.6);2.3 (1.0–4.3, 1.0)

There was a mistake in the values for Figure 3 as published.

Values for the Y-axis, “PROMIS Functioning T-score” were incorrect.

The corrected caption of Figure 3 appears below.

Social Functioning scores were incorrectly reported.

A correction has been made to the section: Results, Psychosocial Factors, Paragraph 1. The correct text appears below:

“Psychosocial factor levels did not vary over time (Table 2) or differ by arm. Stress and social support levels were comparable to the general population, (31) except for social functioning. CO-OP caregivers reported social functioning levels slightly above the general population average [58.0 (SD 8.1), 57.8 (8.0), and 57.1 (8.1) at 0, 6, and 12 months respectively; population mean = 50 (SD 10)]. Stratifying social functioning by CHW dose (number of visits) did not reveal a dose effect; participants who had zero (56.2, SD 8.0), one (55.5, SD 7.5), or two to four (57.0, SD 8.7) visits all had similar mean social functioning at 12 months compared to the control group (57.7, SD 8.0) (Figure 3). As there was no variation in psychosocial variables, we did not conduct further analyses”.

The original version of this article has been updated.

Generative AI statement

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issue please contact us.

 Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Edited and Reviewed by: Keith A. Mays, University of Minnesota, United States