W M Thomson1, D Locker. 1. Department of Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Dunedin, New Zealand. mthomson@gandalf.otago.ac.nz
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test a modification of a previously-reported six-item dental neglect scale and examine its association with dental health and service-use among young adults. METHODS: Of the 980 26-year-old participants in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 973 completed the scale and 930 underwent dental examination. Sociodemographic and dental service-use data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that five of the original six items loaded on the scale, and responses to those items were summed to give a dental neglect scale score for each participant. Scale scores were normally distributed (mean=13.0; SD=3.6; range 5 to 25), and a median split created higher and lower dental neglect groups. A higher proportion of the higher neglect group group: (i) were male; (ii) rated their dental health and dental appearance as below average; (iii) brushed their teeth infrequently; (iv) had extensive plaque deposits; (v) used dental services only when they had a problem; (vi) had not recently seen a dentist; (vii) had lost at least one permanent tooth because of caries, and (viii) had a greater number of decayed tooth surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: Although further examination of its validity and reliability is indicated, the dental neglect scale appears to hold promise for use in dental health promotion, not only in highlighting population groups or individuals who would benefit from intensive health promotion efforts, but also in the evaluation of health promotion interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To test a modification of a previously-reported six-item dental neglect scale and examine its association with dental health and service-use among young adults. METHODS: Of the 980 26-year-old participants in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, 973 completed the scale and 930 underwent dental examination. Sociodemographic and dental service-use data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Factor analysis showed that five of the original six items loaded on the scale, and responses to those items were summed to give a dental neglect scale score for each participant. Scale scores were normally distributed (mean=13.0; SD=3.6; range 5 to 25), and a median split created higher and lower dental neglect groups. A higher proportion of the higher neglect group group: (i) were male; (ii) rated their dental health and dental appearance as below average; (iii) brushed their teeth infrequently; (iv) had extensive plaque deposits; (v) used dental services only when they had a problem; (vi) had not recently seen a dentist; (vii) had lost at least one permanent tooth because of caries, and (viii) had a greater number of decayed tooth surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: Although further examination of its validity and reliability is indicated, the dental neglect scale appears to hold promise for use in dental health promotion, not only in highlighting population groups or individuals who would benefit from intensive health promotion efforts, but also in the evaluation of health promotion interventions.
Authors: Mengxia Chen; Casey D Wright; Oluwabunmi Tokede; Alfa Yansane; Alexander Montasem; Elsbeth Kalenderian; Terri H Beaty; Eleanor Feingold; John R Shaffer; Richard J Crout; Katherine Neiswanger; Robert J Weyant; Mary L Marazita; Daniel W McNeil Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Cecelia I Nelson; Casey D Wright; Jamey T Brumbaugh; Katherine Neiswanger; Richard J Crout; Christa L Lilly; Mary L Marazita; Daniel W McNeil Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.752