Article

Social gradients and cumulative effects of income and education on dental health in the Fourth German Oral Health Study

Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 1.8). 04/2010; 38(2):120-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00520.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To consider differential effects of income and education on oral health for each indicator separately and in combination. Finally the combined effects of the lowest income level and the lowest level of education were examined.
Data were drawn from the Fourth German Oral Health Study. They were collected using proportional random sampling in order to obtain information also for less densely populated regions. The subjects included in the study were between 35 and 44 years of age (n = 925). It included a clinical dental examination and a sociological survey. Social differentiation was depicted by education and income (divided into categories), oral health was measured using the DMFT-index.
Social gradients emerged for both indicators of social differentiation. The effects derived from single analyses were somewhat higher than those obtained by simultaneous estimations. The odds ratio of the lowest as compared with the highest income category was OR = 3.74 and OR = 2.34 in the analysis with both indicators. For education the respective effects were OR = 3.75 and OR = 2.95. The cumulative effect of the lowest income and the lowest educational level combined was OR = 6.06.
Education and income are shaping social inequalities in oral health independently from each other, and they are only moderately correlated. They refer to different dimensions of disadvantage thus making preventive measures more complicated.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
86 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral health inequalities associated with socioeconomic status are widely observed but may depend on the way that both oral health and socioeconomic status are measured. Our aim was to investigate inequalities using diverse indicators of oral health and 4 socioeconomic determinants, in the context of age and cohort. Multiple linear or logistic regressions were estimated for 7 oral health measures representing very different outcomes (2 caries prevalence measures, decayed/missing/filled teeth, 6-mm pockets, number of teeth, anterior spaces, and excellent oral health) against 4 socioeconomic measures (income, education, Index of Multiple Deprivation, and occupational social class) for adults aged ≥21 y in the 2009 UK Adult Dental Health Survey data set. Confounders were adjusted and marginal effects calculated. The results showed highly variable relationships for the different combinations of variables and that age group was critical, with different relationships at different ages. There were significant income inequalities in caries prevalence in the youngest age group, marginal effects of 0.10 to 0.18, representing a 10- to 18-percentage point increase in the probability of caries between the wealthiest and every other quintile, but there was not a clear gradient across the quintiles. With number of teeth as an outcome, there were significant income gradients after adjustment in older groups, up to 4.5 teeth (95% confidence interval, 2.2-6.8) between richest and poorest but none for the younger groups. For periodontal disease, income inequalities were mediated by other socioeconomic variables and smoking, while for anterior spaces, the relationships were age dependent and complex. In conclusion, oral health inequalities manifest in different ways in different age groups, representing age and cohort effects. Income sometimes has an independent relationship, but education and area of residence are also contributory. Appropriate choices of measures in relation to age are fundamental if we are to understand and address inequalities.
    Journal of Dental Research 10/2014; 94(1). DOI:10.1177/0022034514553978 · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dental caries is the most prevalent disease worldwide, with the majority of caries lesions being concentrated in few, often disadvantaged social groups. We aimed to systematically assess current evidence for the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and caries. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42013005947). We included studies investigating the association between social position (determined by own or parental educational or occupational background, or income) and caries prevalence, experience or incidence. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale for observational studies. Reported differences between the lowest and highest SEP were assessed, and data not missing at random imputed. Random-effects inverse-generic meta-analyses were performed, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses used to control for possible confounding. Publication bias was assessed via Funnel plot analysis and Egger test. From 5,539 screened records, 155 studies with mostly low or moderate quality evaluating a total of 329,798 individuals were included. Studies used various designs, SEP measures and outcome parameters. 83 studies found at least one measure of caries to be significantly higher in low-SEP compared with high-SEP individuals, whilst only three studies found the opposite. The odds of having any caries lesions or caries experience (DMFT/dmft>0) were significantly greater in those with low own or parental educational or occupational background or income (between OR [95% CI]=1.21 [1.03-1.41] and OR=1.48 [1.34-1.63]). The association between low educational background and having DMFT/dmft>0 was significantly increased in highly developed countries (R2=1.32 [0.53-2.13]). Publication bias was present but did not significantly affect our estimates. Due to risk of bias in included studies, the available evidence was graded as low or very low. Low SEP is associated with a higher risk of having caries lesions or experience. This association might be stronger in developed countries. Established diagnostic and treatment concepts might not account for the unequal distribution of caries.
    Journal of Dental Research 10/2014; DOI:10.1177/0022034514557546 · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this study were to determine self-rated oral health and dental attendance habits among Swedish adults, with special reference to the role of social inequalities, after the Swedish dental care reform in 2008. The study is based on a survey questionnaire, sent to 12,235 residents of a Swedish county, in 2012. The age group was 16-84 years: 5,999 (49%) responded. Using chi-square statistics, differences in prevalence of self-rated oral health and regular dental attendance were analysed with respect to gender, age, educational level, family status, employment status and country of birth. Self-rated poor oral health was analysed by multivarite logistic regression adjusting for the different socio-demographic factors, financial security and having refrained from dental treatment for financial reasons. Three out of four respondents (75%) reported fairly good or very good oral health. Almost 90% claimed to be regular dental attenders. Those who were financially secure reported better oral health. The differences in oral health between those with a cash margin and those without were large whereas the differences between age groups were rather small. About 8% reported that they had refrained from dental treatment for financial reasons during the last three months. Self-rated poor oral health was most common among the unemployed, those on disability pension or on long-term sick leave, those born outside the Nordic countries and those with no cash margin (odds ratios ranging from 2.4 to 4.4). The most important factor contributing to these differences was having refrained from dental treatment for financial reasons. The results are relevant to strategies intended to reduce social inequalities in oral health, affirming the importance of the provision of equitable access to dental care.
    BMC Oral Health 01/2014; 14:134. DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-14-134 · 1.15 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
21 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014