The length of the reference period used in surveys of subjective oral health may have a marked influence on the responses obtained. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a 1-month (RP-1) vs. a 12-month (RP-12) reference period in the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Using a randomized cross-over design, RP-1 and RP-12 OHIP-14 questionnaires were administered, 1 month apart, to two samples of Finnish adults, namely people awaiting orthognathic surgery (n = 104) and non-patient workers (n = 111). The effect of the reference period was computed by subtracting RP-1 OHIP-14 severity scores from RP-12 OHIP-14 severity scores (DeltaRP). Potential order effects were assessed by comparing DeltaRP between groups completing the RP-1 vs. the RP-12 questionnaire first. Mean OHIP-14 severity scores were slightly higher when the RP-12 questionnaire was administered first, but mean DeltaRP values were below the value of 2.5 considered clinically meaningful, and all 95% confidence intervals for DeltaRP included zero. No order effects in the OHIP-14 severity scores were observed. Therefore, although a standardized reference period of 12 months is recommended, in population surveys the use of a shorter reference period does not appear to influence responses.
"Since the present study was part of a larger longitudinal study, including several time points, the shorter reference period in the post-treatment questionnaire concerning facial pain intensity was chosen to exclude pain due to treatment. However, based on previous results, the duration of the reference period (1 month vs 12 months) does not seem to have a statistically nor clinically significant effect on reported oral impacts . A re-analysis of the same data on four singleitem questions was conducted, showing the agreement to be substantial for three items: facial pain, jaw pain and OHIP-14 pain item . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim was to evaluate the relationships of changes in facial pain, temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and oral health-related quality-of-life (OHRQoL) in adults who underwent orthodontic or orthodontic/surgical treatment.
Sixty-four patients (46 women, 18 men, range 18-64 years) with severe malocclusion and functional problems were treated in Oulu University Hospital. Of these, 44 underwent orthodontic-surgical and 20 orthodontic treatment. Data were collected with questionnaires and clinical stomatognathic examinations before and on average 3 years after treatment. The OHRQoL was measured with OHIP-14 (The Oral Health Impact Profile), the intensity of facial pain with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the severity of TMD with the Helkimo's anamnestic (Ai) and clinical (Di) dysfunction indices.
A significant improvement was found in facial pain, signs and symptoms of TMD and OHRQoL after the treatment (p < 0.05). The decrease in VAS was associated with improvement in OHIP-14 severity (r = 0.296, p = 0.019). The correlations between changes in OHIP-14 severity and Ai and Di were not statistically significant.
Treatment of severe malocclusion seemed to improve OHRQoL via decreased facial pain. Decreased facial pain was associated especially with improved OHRQoL dimensions of physical pain, physical disability and social disability.
"Nevertheless, we believe using this single number is worthwhile as it is a simple and practical guide to interpret OHIP scores. As OHIP scores are potentially influenced by recall periods
[20,28], memory effects
, order effects
[15,16], and administration method
; these methodological factors may also potentially influence the problem count per OHIP point. However, it has been shown that OHIP scores are rather robust against the influence of methodological factors. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Interpretation of scores from oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) instruments, such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) is challenging. It was the aim of this study to determine how many oral impacts correspond to one point of the 49-item OHIP using a new approach which translates numeric problem counts into the traditionally used ordinal OHIP response categories.
A sample of 145 consecutively recruited prosthodontic patients seeking treatment or having a routine examination completed the German version of the 49-item OHIP with the original ordinal response format as a self-administered questionnaire. In addition, the numerical frequencies of impairment during the previous month were requested in personal interviews. Based on a multilevel mixed-effects linear regression, we estimated the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) in numerical frequency between two adjacent ordinal responses.
A numerical frequency of 15.2 (CI: 14.8 – 15.7) impacts per month corresponded to one OHIP point. This translates to approximately one impact every other day in the past month.
The oral problem count per day that corresponds to one OHIP-49 point can be used to interpret this instrument’s scores in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. This number can help to better understand OHRQoL burden for patients, clinicians, and researchers alike.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 01/2013; 11(1):12. DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-11-12 · 2.12 Impact Factor
"For each of the 14 OHIP questions, participants were asked how frequently they had experienced the impact of that item in the preceding month using a Likert-like scale coded 4 = very often, 3 = fairly often, 2 = occasionally, 1 = hardly ever, and 0 = never. Consistent with the recommended recall period for the Japanese OHIP version , 1 month was chosen as frame of reference which provides similar results to the 12-months recall period of the original English-language OHIP according to two studies [25,26]. The OHIP-J14 summary score ranged from 0 to 56, with higher OHIP scores indicating poorer OHRQoL. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: One of the most immediate and important functional consequences of many oral disorders is a reduction in chewing ability. The ability to chew is not only an important dimension of oral health, but is increasingly recognized as being associated with general health status. Whether perceived chewing ability and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) are correlated to a similar degree in patient populations has been less investigated. The aim of this study was to examine whether perceived chewing ability was related to OHRQoL in partially dentate patients.
Consecutive partially dentate patients (N = 489) without signs or symptoms of acute oral disease at Tokyo Medical and Dental University's Prosthodontic Clinic participated in the study (mean age 63.0 ± 11.5, 71.2% female). A 20-item chewing function questionnaire (score range 0 to 20) was used to assess perceived chewing ability, with higher scores indicating better chewing ability. The 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile-Japanese version (OHIP-J14, score range 0 to 56) was used to measure OHRQoL, with higher scores indicating poorer OHRQoL. A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between the two questionnaire summary scores. A linear regression analysis was used to describe how perceived chewing ability scores were related to OHRQoL scores.
The mean chewing function score was 12.1 ± 4.8 units. The mean OHIP-J14 summary score was 13.0 ± 9.1 units. Perceived chewing ability and OHRQoL were significantly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient: -0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.52 to -0.38), indicating that higher chewing ability was correlated with lower OHIP-J14 summary scores (p < 0.001), which indicate better OHRQoL. A 1.0-unit increase in chewing function scores was related to a decrease of 0.87 OHIP-J14 units (95% CI: -1.0 to -0.72, p < 0.001). The correlation between perceived chewing ability and OHRQoL was not substantially influenced by age and number of teeth, but by gender, years of schooling, treatment demand and denture status.
Patients' perception of their chewing ability was substantially related to their OHRQoL.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 10/2010; 8(1):118. DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-8-118 · 2.12 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.