Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Equipe d'accueil EA 4847, Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique (CROC), Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Qual Life Res. 2021 Apr;30(4):1199-1213. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02709-w. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the psychometric properties of three OHRQoL indicators (GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT) in a group of complete edentulous subjects and to explore the ability of these instruments to distinguish between individuals with different prosthetic and oral health status. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Edentulous individuals aged 60 years and more were recruited between January 2019 and February 2020 in a medical and dental care centers. The Lebanese versions of GOHAI, OHIP-14, and OHIP-EDENT were used. External and internal consistencies were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach alpha, respectively. The concurrent validity was evaluated by testing the indicators against a proxy measure of a similar concept. To test their discriminative abilities, the ADD (GOHAI and OHIP) and SC (GOHAI and OHIP) scores were dichotomized according to the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively, and multivariate analyses were performed using sociodemographic, clinical, and subjective health parameters as explanatory variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and two edentulous subjects (age: 72.94 ± 7.378 years) were included. The proportion of subjects with no impact was lower for OHIP-EDENT (7.9%) compared to GOHAI (28.2%) and OHIP-14 (38.6%). Reproducibility was satisfactory for all OHRQoL tools since they were able to reproduce the results consistently in time (ICC > 0.80). The Cronbach alpha values were greater than 0.8 indicating acceptable internal consistency. The concurrent validity of the three tools was acceptable since subjects with lower OHRQoL score were less satisfied with their dentures and reported a higher need for self-rated therapy. Concerning the discriminant validity, OHIP-EDENT was more discriminant than OHIP-14 and GOHAI, since it was more able to identify patients with poor prosthetic issues or using instable denture. CONCLUSION: The OHIP-EDENT was more effective in identifying edentulous individuals with oral and prosthetic problems. Our results can help decide which dental instrument to use to assess the perception of oral health in edentulous individuals. More prospective studies are required to compare their evaluative properties.
目的：比较三种口腔健康相关生活质量指标（GOHAI、OHIP-14 和 OHIP-EDENT）在一组全口无牙受试者中的心理测量特性，并探讨这些工具区分不同义齿和口腔健康状况个体的能力。 方法：这是一项横断面研究。2019 年 1 月至 2020 年 2 月期间，在医疗和牙科中心招募年龄在 60 岁及以上的无牙患者。使用 GOHAI、OHIP-14 和 OHIP-EDENT 的黎巴嫩版本。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和克朗巴赫 alpha 分别评估内部和外部一致性。通过将指标与类似概念的替代测量值进行测试来评估其同时效度。为了测试它们的区分能力，根据第 25 和 75 百分位数将 GOHAI 和 OHIP 的 ADD（GOHAI 和 OHIP）和 SC（GOHAI 和 OHIP）得分进行二分，并使用社会人口统计学、临床和主观健康参数作为解释变量进行多元分析。 结果：共纳入 202 名无牙受试者（年龄：72.94±7.378 岁）。与 GOHAI（28.2%）和 OHIP-14（38.6%）相比，OHIP-EDENT 中无影响的受试者比例较低（7.9%）。所有口腔健康相关生活质量工具的可重复性均令人满意，因为它们能够在时间上始终如一地复制结果（ICC>0.80）。Cronbach alpha 值大于 0.8，表明内部一致性可接受。这三种工具的同时效度是可以接受的，因为口腔健康相关生活质量得分较低的受试者对义齿的满意度较低，并报告需要更高的自我评估治疗。关于判别效度，OHIP-EDENT 比 OHIP-14 和 GOHAI 更具判别力，因为它更能识别出有不良义齿问题或使用不稳定义齿的患者。 结论：OHIP-EDENT 更能有效识别有口腔和义齿问题的无牙个体。我们的结果可以帮助决定在无牙个体中使用哪种牙科仪器来评估口腔健康感知。需要更多的前瞻性研究来比较它们的评估特性。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012-10-30
Braz Oral Res. 2018-10-29
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022-11-9
Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2022-6-3
Dent Clin North Am. 2019-4
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018-3-1
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015-2
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012-10-30
Zotero 插件