Clinical, social and psychosocial factors associated with self-rated oral health in Brazilian adolescents.
ABSTRACT The objective of this study is to investigate the main social, psychosocial and clinical factors associated with poor self-rated oral health in adolescents.
A cross-sectional survey was carried out in two cities of the Distrito Federal, Brazil. Data were collected by clinical examinations and by self-administered questionnaires from 1302 adolescents aged 14- 15 years in 39 schools. Data analysis was carried out using a Poisson regression model taking into account the cluster sample.
Adjusting for social, psychosocial and clinical factors, results showed that poor self-rated oral health was significantly associated (P < 0.001) with sex (males) [prevalence ratio (PR) = 0.8, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.7-0.9]; low social class (PR =1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6); poor self-rated general health (PR = 2.6, 95% CI: 2.3-3.1); mouth appearance (PR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.6-2.2) and with presence of untreated dental decay (PR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3-1.6).
The single question on self-rated oral health appears to be a simple and easy way to collect dental health information in adolescents. Assessment and understanding of self-rated oral health should take into account social, psychosocial and oral factors.
- SourceAvailable from: Jitse P van Dijk[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The influence of social support on health was explored among gender and socio-economic groups with the aim of contributing to the explanation of socio-economic health differences among Slovak adolescents. The sample consisted of 2616 Slovak adolescents (52.4% male, 47.6% female, mean age 15 years). The data were assessed by a self-reported questionnaire including measures of social support, socio-economic status and health. There are significant gender differences in social support, which are unfavourable for males. On the other hand, there are significant gender differences in health, unfavourable for females. Low social support is significantly related to worse health. There are significant socio-economic differences in both health and social support, which are unfavourable for lower socio-economic groups. Three groups, females, adolescents from lower socio-economic groups, and also adolescents reporting low social support, less frequently consider their health as excellent or very good. Females suffer from more health complaints, report worse psychological health, vitality and mental health in comparison to males, to adolescents from higher socio-economic groups, and to adolescents reporting high social support. Males and adolescents from lower socio-economic groups more frequently reported low social support in comparison to females and adolescents from higher socio-economic groups. No significant differences in the influence of social support on health among gender and socio-economic groups of adolescents were confirmed. Social support is related to health and it is unequally distributed among gender and socio-economic groups. Social support had a positive impact on health, but this effect was independent of gender and socio-economic groups.The European Journal of Public Health 04/2003; 13(1):44-50. · 2.52 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is widely recognized that social relationships and affiliation have powerful effects on physical and mental health. When investigators write about the impact of social relationships on health, many terms are used loosely and interchangeably including social networks, social ties and social integration. The aim of this paper is to clarify these terms using a single framework. We discuss: (1) theoretical orientations from diverse disciplines which we believe are fundamental to advancing research in this area; (2) a set of definitions accompanied by major assessment tools; and (3) an overarching model which integrates multilevel phenomena. Theoretical orientations that we draw upon were developed by Durkheim whose work on social integration and suicide are seminal and John Bowlby, a psychiatrist who developed attachment theory in relation to child development and contemporary social network theorists. We present a conceptual model of how social networks impact health. We envision a cascading causal process beginning with the macro-social to psychobiological processes that are dynamically linked together to form the processes by which social integration effects health. We start by embedding social networks in a larger social and cultural context in which upstream forces are seen to condition network structure. Serious consideration of the larger macro-social context in which networks form and are sustained has been lacking in all but a small number of studies and is almost completely absent in studies of social network influences on health. We then move downstream to understand the influences network structure and function have on social and interpersonal behavior. We argue that networks operate at the behavioral level through four primary pathways: (1) provision of social support; (2) social influence; (3) on social engagement and attachment; and (4) access to resources and material goods.Social Science [?] Medicine 10/2000; 51(6):843-57. · 2.73 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses appropriate strategies for multivariate data analysis in epidemiological studies. In studies where determinants of disease are sought, it is suggested that the complex hierarchical inter-relationships between these determinants are best managed through the use of conceptual frameworks. Failure to take these aspects into consideration is common in the epidemiological literature and leads to underestimation of the effects of distal determinants. An example of this analytical approach, which is not based purely on statistical associations, is given for assessing determinants of mortality due to diarrhoea in children. Conceptual frameworks provide guidance for the use of multivariate techniques and aid the interpretation of their results in the light of social and biological knowledge.International Journal of Epidemiology 03/1997; 26(1):224-7. · 6.98 Impact Factor