6533b822fe1ef96bd127d992

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Comparative validity of the OIDP and OHIP-14 in describing the impact of oral health on quality of life in a cross-sectional study performed in Spanish adults.

María-purificación VicenteManuel BravoMaría-purificación GalindoJoaquín-francisco LópezJavier MonteroAlberto Albaladejo

subject

GerontologyAdultMaleCross-sectional studyLower faceOral HealthOral healthCronbach's alphaQuality of lifeSickness Impact ProfileCriterion validityContent validityMedicineHumansGeneral Dentistrybusiness.industryReproducibility of ResultsMiddle Aged:CIENCIAS MÉDICAS [UNESCO]humanitiesstomatognathic diseasesCross-Sectional StudiesOtorhinolaryngologySpainUNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICASQuality of LifeOral examinationSurgeryFemalebusiness

description

Objectives: We aimed to compare the utility and validity of two popular socio-dental indicators (OIDP and OHIP- 14) for describing the impact of oral conditions on quality of life applied simultaneously. Study design: We recruited a consecutive sample of 270 healthy Spanish workers visiting the Employment Risk Prevention Centre for a routine medical check-up. OHIP-14 was self-completed before the oral examination and the face to face interview of the OIDP was performed. Both instruments were compared by evaluating its reliability and its validity. Results and Conclusions: The standardised Cronbach alphas for OHIP-14 and OIDP were 0.89 and 0.74 respectively. OIDP showed lower face validity but higher content validity than OHIP-14. Both indicators showed high construct and criterion validity, since individuals perceiving need for dental treatment or having any complaint about their mouth obtained significantly higher total OIDP and OHIP scores than their counterparts. The prevalence of impacts was much higher using the OHIP (80.7%) than the OIDP (27.8%). © Medicina Oral S. L.

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2010-02-21Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal
10.4317/medoral.16851https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21217617