Interpreting one oral health impact profile point

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Mike T John¹  Guido Heydecke³  Ira Sierwald³  Daniel R Reissmann² 

[1] Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 S Second Street, Minneapolis 55454, MN, USA;Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, 515 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis 55455, MN, USA;Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany

关键词: Assessment;    OHRQoL;    Response format;    OHIP;   

Others  :  824098
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-12

 received in 2012-11-03, accepted in 2013-01-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Reissmann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Naito M, Yuasa H, Nomura Y, Nakayama T, Hamajima N, Hanada N: Oral health status and health-related quality of life: a systematic review. J Oral Sci 2006, 48(1):1-7.
• [2]Sischo L, Broder HL: Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res 2011, 90(11):1264-1270.
• [3]Thomson WM, Lawrence HP, Broadbent JM, Poulton R: The impact of xerostomia on oral-health-related quality of life among younger adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:86. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Heydecke G, Locker D, Awad MA, Lund JP, Feine JS: Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003, 31(3):161-168.
• [5]Dugas NN, Lawrence HP, Teplitsky P, Friedman S: Quality of life and satisfaction outcomes of endodontic treatment. J Endod 2002, 28(12):819-827.
• [6]Armellini DB, Heydecke G, Witter DJ, Creugers NH: Effect of removable partial dentures on oral health-related quality of life in subjects with shortened dental arches: a 2-center cross-sectional study. Int J Prosthodont 2008, 21(6):524-530.
• [7]McMillan AS, Pow EH, Leung WK, Wong MC, Kwong DL: Oral health-related quality of life in southern Chinese following radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Oral Rehabil 2004, 31(6):600-608.
• [8]Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status, Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10(4):407-415.
• [9]Wyrwich KW, Nelson HS, Tierney WM, Babu AN, Kroenke K, Wolinsky FD: Clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with asthma: an expert consensus panel report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2003, 91(2):148-153.
• [10]Allen PF, O'Sullivan M, Locker D: Determining the minimally important difference for the Oral Health Impact Profile-20. Eur J Oral Sci 2009, 117(2):129-134.
• [11]John MT, Reissmann DR, Szentpetery A, Steele J: An approach to define clinical significance in prosthodontics. J Prosthodont 2009, 18(5):455-460.
• [12]John MT, LeResche L, Koepsell TD, Hujoel P, Miglioretti DL, Micheelis W: Oral health-related quality of life in Germany. Eur J Oral Sci 2003, 111(6):483-491.
• [13]Slade GD: The Oral Health Impact Profile. In Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. Edited by Slade GD. Chapel Hill: Department of Dental Ecology, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina; 1997:93-104.
• [14]Allen PF, Locker D: Do item weights matter? An assessment using the oral health impact profile. Community Dent Health 1997, 14:133-138.
• [15]Kieffer JM, Hoogstraten J: Item-order effects in the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). Eur J Oral Sci 2008, 116(3):245-249.
• [16]Kieffer JM, Verrips GH, Hoogstraten J: Instrument-order effects: using the Oral Health Impact Profile 49 and the Short Form 12. Eur J Oral Sci 2011, 119(1):69-72.
• [17]Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O: Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 2011, 119(1):73-78.
• [18]John MT, Reissmann DR, Schierz O, Allen F: No significant retest effects in oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Acta Odontol Scand 2008, 66(3):135-138.
• [19]Sierwald I, John MT, Durham J, Mirzakhanian C, Reissmann DR: Validation of the response format of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 2011, 119(6):489-496.
• [20]John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD: The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile–translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci 2002, 110(6):425-433.
• [21]Royston P: gr6: Lowess smoothing. Stata Tech Bull 1991, 3:7-9.
• [22]Reissmann DR, Dietze B, Vogeler M, Schmelzeisen R, Heydecke G: Impact of donor site for bone graft harvesting for dental implants on health-related and oral health-related quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012.
• [23]Baba K, Igarashi Y, Nishiyama A, John MT, Akagawa Y, Ikebe K, Ishigami T, Kobayashi H, Yamashita S: The relationship between missing occlusal units and oral health-related quality of life in patients with shortened dental arches. Int J Prosthodont 2008, 21(1):72-4.
• [24]Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O, Wassell RW: Functional and psychosocial impact related to specific temporomandibular disorder diagnoses. J Dent 2007, 35(8):643-50.
• [25]Szabo G, John MT, Szanto I, Marada G, Kende D, Szentpetery A: Impaired oral health-related quality of life in Hungary. Acta Odontol Scand 2011, 69(2):108-17.
• [26]John MT, Hujoel P, Miglioretti DL, Leresche L, Koepsell TD, Micheelis W: Dimensions of oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 2004, 83(12):956-60.
• [27]Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ: The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain 1997, 72(1–2):95-7.
• [28]Sutinen S, Lahti S, Nuttall NM, Sanders AE, Steele JG, Allen PF, Slade GD: Effect of a 1-month vs. a 12-month reference period on responses to the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 2007, 115(3):246-9.
• [29]Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002, 11(3):193-205.