Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 146–150 | Cite as

Oral health related quality of life of Greek adolescents: a cross-sectional study

  • W. Papaioannou
  • C. J. OulisEmail author
  • D. Latsou
  • J. Yfantopoulos
Article

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the impact of oral health status on the quality of life of a cross-section of adolescents belonging to different population groups in different regions of Greece, using the Oral Health Impact Profile-short form (OHIP-14), one of the most widely known instruments used for the measurement of disability and discomfort due to oral conditions. METHODS: A random sample consisting of a total of 515 Greek adolescents between the ages of 15–18 years (mean 16.1±0.9) were selected from different urban and rural areas according to the last census. A self-administrated questionnaire was designed including the OHIP-14 validated for the Greek language, and face-to-face interviews were conducted by one dentist trained in oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) terms. Associations of the total OHIP-14 score and its seven sub-scales along with the self-perceived quality of life were evaluated with Spearman correlations. RESULTS: Internal reliability returned a very good internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha of 0.86. The subjects had an overall weighted OHIP-14 score of 1.24 (SD 2.04) meaning that there was an impact of oral health on the overall quality of life. Five of the seven subscales of the OHIP-14 tool were found to have significant correlations for the inhabitants of the different areas. Specifically, important and significant correlations were noted for functional limitation (p<0.01), handicap (p<0.05) and social disability (p<0.01) both for the metropolitan/non-metropolitan as well as the urban rural distinction. No correlations were found between the OHIP-14 scores, or of any of its sub-scales, with the parental education level and occupation. When self-assessed oral and general health statuses were considered to be ‘bad’ the OHIP-14 returned increased scores. CONCLUSIONS: Dental and oral health conditions are factors that do impact on the quality of life of adolescents.

Key Words

Paediatric dentistry oral health quality of life adolescents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Einarson S, Warnberg Gerdin E, Hugoson A; OH impact on quality of life in an adult Swedish population. Acta Odont Scand 2009, 67;85–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A et al. Quality of Life Measurement: Bibliographic Study of Patients Assessed Health Outcome Measures. British Medical Journal 2002, 324;1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. John MT, Le Resche L, Koepsell T et al. DL OH-related quality of life in Germany. European Journal of Oral Sciences 2003, 111;483–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Larson JS. The conceptualisation of health. Med Care Res Rev 1999, 56;123–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Locker D: Measuring OH. a conceptual framework. Community Dental Health 1988, 5:3–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lopez R, Baelum V. Spanish version of the OH Impact Profile (OHIP-Sp). BMC OH2006, 6;11–18.Google Scholar
  7. McGrath C, Bedi R. The importance of OH to older people’s quality of life. Gerondology 1999, 16–59.Google Scholar
  8. McGrath C, Bedi R. Measuring the impact of OH in lige quality in two national surveys — functionalist versus hermeneutic approaches. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 2002, 30;254–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Oulis C, Theodorou M, Mastrogiannakis T et al. OH status and treatment needs of the Hellenic population-a pathfinder survey-proposals for improvement. Hellenic Stomatological Review 2009, 53;97–120.Google Scholar
  10. Parker EJ, Jamieson LM. Associations between indigenous Australian OH literacy and self-reported OH outcomes. BMC OH 2010, 10;3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reisine S. Dental health and public policy: the social impact of dental disease. Am J Public Health 1985, 75;27–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roumani T, Oulis CJ, Papagianopoulou V et al. Validation of a Greek version of the OH impact profile (OHIP-14) in adolescents. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2010, 11;247–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the OH Impact Profile. Community Dental Health 1994, 11;3–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Slade GD. Measuring OH and Quality of Life. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, Dental Ecology, 1997a.Google Scholar
  15. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form OH impact profile. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 1997b, 25;284–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Soe KK, Gelbier S, Robinson PG. Reliability and validity of two OH related quality of life measures in Myanmar adolescents. Community Dent Health 2004, 21;306–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. US Department of Health and Human Services. OH in America. A Report of the Surgeon General. HIH publication 00-4713. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 2000; 7.Google Scholar
  18. Vargas M, Ronzio R, Hayes KL. OH status of children and adolescents by rural residence, United States. Journal of Rural Health 2003, 19;260–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. World Health Organisation. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva; 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Papaioannou
    • 1
  • C. J. Oulis
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. Latsou
    • 3
  • J. Yfantopoulos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.School of Law, Economic and Political SciencesUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations