Home  About us  Contact
 

Subjective Oral Health (subjective + oral_health)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Job characteristics and the subjective oral health of Australian workers

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 3 2004
Anne E. Sanders
Objectives: To examine the associations between hours worked, job security, skill maintenance and work and home interference and subjective oral health; and to compare findings for different occupational groups. Methods: Data were collected in 1999 from a random stratified sample of households in all Australian States and Territories using a telephone interview and a questionnaire survey. Subjective oral health was evaluated with the short form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), which assesses the adverse impact of oral conditions on quality of life. Results: Data were obtained for 2,347 dentate adults in the workforce. In the 12 months preceding the survey, 51.9% had experienced oral pain and 31.0% reported psychological discomfort from dental problems. Males, young adults, Australian-born workers, and those in upper-white collar occupations reported lower mean OHIP-14 scores (ANOVA p<0.001). Having controlled for the effects sex, age, country of birth and socio-economic factors in a linear multiple regression analysis, hours worked, skill maintenance and work and home interference were significantly associated with OHIP-14 scores for all workers. While part-time work was associated with higher OHIP-14 among upper white-collar workers, working >40 hours a week was associated with higher OHIP-14 scores for other workers. Conclusions: Aspects of the work environment are associated with the subjective oral health of workers. Because these contexts are subject to only limited control by individual workers, their influence is a public health issue. [source]

Effect of a 1-month vs. a 12-month reference period on responses to the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 3 2007
Saila Sutinen
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 (,RP). Potential order effects were assessed by comparing ,RP 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 ,RP values were below the value of 2.5 considered clinically meaningful, and all 95% confidence intervals for ,RP 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. [source]

Job characteristics and the subjective oral health of Australian workers

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 3 2004
Anne E. Sanders
Objectives: To examine the associations between hours worked, job security, skill maintenance and work and home interference and subjective oral health; and to compare findings for different occupational groups. Methods: Data were collected in 1999 from a random stratified sample of households in all Australian States and Territories using a telephone interview and a questionnaire survey. Subjective oral health was evaluated with the short form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), which assesses the adverse impact of oral conditions on quality of life. Results: Data were obtained for 2,347 dentate adults in the workforce. In the 12 months preceding the survey, 51.9% had experienced oral pain and 31.0% reported psychological discomfort from dental problems. Males, young adults, Australian-born workers, and those in upper-white collar occupations reported lower mean OHIP-14 scores (ANOVA p<0.001). Having controlled for the effects sex, age, country of birth and socio-economic factors in a linear multiple regression analysis, hours worked, skill maintenance and work and home interference were significantly associated with OHIP-14 scores for all workers. While part-time work was associated with higher OHIP-14 among upper white-collar workers, working >40 hours a week was associated with higher OHIP-14 scores for other workers. Conclusions: Aspects of the work environment are associated with the subjective oral health of workers. Because these contexts are subject to only limited control by individual workers, their influence is a public health issue. [source]

Social Inequality: Social inequality in perceived oral health among adults in Australia

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 2 2004
Anne E. Sanders
Objective: To establish population estimates of self-assessed tooth loss and subjective oral health and describe the social distribution of these measures among dentate adults in Australia. Methods: Self-report data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 3,678 adults aged 18,91 years who participated in the 1999 National Dental Telephone Interview Survey and completed a subsequent mail survey. Oral health was evaluated using (1) self-assessed tooth loss, (2) the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile, and (3) a global six-point rating of oral health. Results: While the absolute difference in tooth loss across household income levels increased at each successive age group (18,44 years, 45,64 years, 65+ years) from 0.7 teeth to 6.1 teeth, the magnitude of the difference was approximately twofold at each age group. For subjective oral health measures, the magnitude of difference across income groups was most pronounced in the 18,44 years age group. In multivariate analysis, low household income, blue-collar occupation, and high residential area disadvantage were positively associated with social impact from oral conditions and pathological tooth loss. Speaking other than English at home (relative to English), low household income (relative to high income), and vocational relative to tertiary education were each associated with more than twice the odds of poor self-rated oral health. Conclusions: Significant social differentials in perceived oral health exist among dentate adults. Inequalities span the socio-economic hierarchy. Implications: In addition to improving overall levels of oral health in the adult community, goals and targets should aim to reduce social inequalities in the distribution of outcomes. [source]