A Comparison of Three Child OHRQoL Measures.

Lyndie Foster Page,W Thomson,Hillary Broder,Fiona Gilchrist,Ellen Clark

doi:10.3390/dj7010019

Lyndie Foster Page, W Thomson + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7010019

Copy DOI

Journal: Dentistry journal	Publication Date: Feb 12, 2019
Citations: 15	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: University of Otago, University of Sheffield

Abstract

Comparing oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) measures can facilitate selecting the most appropriate one for a particular research question/setting. Three child OHRQoL measures Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11–14), the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP) and the Caries Impacts and Experiences Questionnaire for Children (CARIES-QC) were used with 335 10- to 13-year-old participants in a supervised tooth-brushing programme in New Zealand. The use of global questions enabled their validity to be examined. Assessments were conducted at baseline and after 12 months. All three measures had acceptable internal consistency reliability. There were moderate, positive correlations among their scores, and all showed differences in the impact of dental caries on OHRQoL, with children with the highest caries experience having the highest scale scores. Effect sizes were used to assess meaningful change. The CPQ11–14 and the CARIES-QC showed meaningful change. The COHIP-SF score showed no meaningful change. Among children reporting improved OHRQoL, baseline and follow-up scores differed significantly for the CPQ11–14 and CARIES-QC measures, although not for the COHIP-SF. The three scales were broadly similar in their conceptual basis, reliability and validity, but responsiveness of the COHIP-SF was questionable, and the need to compute two different scores for the CARIES-QC meant that its administrative burden was considerably greater than for the other two measures. Replication and use of alternative approaches to measuring meaningful change are suggested.

Highlights

Oral health was defined by Locker as “a standard of the oral tissues which contributes to overall physical, psychological and social well-being by enabling individuals to eat, communicate and socialise without discomfort, embarrassment or distress and which enables them to fully participate in their chosen social roles” [1]
More than two-thirds of the children presented with carious teeth, and one-fifth had more than 4 teeth affected
A similar moderate but slightly lower positive correlation was found with the CPQ11–14 and CARIES-QC (Figure 3) with a Pearson’s r of 0.64

Summary

Introduction

Oral health was defined by Locker as “a standard of the oral tissues which contributes to overall physical, psychological and social well-being by enabling individuals to eat, communicate and socialise without discomfort, embarrassment or distress and which enables them to fully participate in their chosen social roles” [1]. A great deal of research effort has focused on developing, validating and testing what are usually referred to as “OHRQoL measures” but are scales which measure the impact of oral conditions on people’s lives. Most scales measure only negative aspects (impacts) of oral health, thereby failing to encompass the positive aspects which are more congruent with current definitions of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) [3]. The two most commonly used child OHRQoL measures are the short-form versions of the CPQ11–14 [4] and the COHIP [5]. These were developed for use with a wide range of conditions which affect children’s

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion