David Simon Brennan1, A J Spencer. 1. Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, School of Dentistry, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, South Australia, Australia. david.brennan@adelaide.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors largely external to the individual--such as social support and those that are inherently dispositional, like optimism--may both play a role in determining oral health outcomes and serve to buffer the effect of each other. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess associations of social support and optimism on oral health. METHOD: In 2005-2006, n = 1,859 persons around 30 years old were surveyed to collect data on social support, optimism, oral health-related quality of life, and caries experience. RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses found high social support associated (P < 0.05) with fewer (mean ± SE) decayed teeth (0.6 ± 0.1) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.7 ± 0.2) compared to low support (1.0 ± 0.2 and 4.5 ± 0.4 respectively). High optimism was associated with fewer missing teeth (2.1 ± 0.2) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.1 ± 0.2) compared to low optimism (2.9 ± 0.2 and 3.8 ± 0.2, respectively). Multivariate regressions adjusted for dental visiting, toothbrushing, sex, income, work status and education showed social support and optimism had (P < 0.05) negative associations with missing teeth (β = -1.0) and caries experience (β = -1.5) for high support/high optimism compared to low support/low optimism. All three non-reference combinations of support/optimism showed negative associations (β = -1.6 to -2.4) with impact of problems compared to low support/low optimism. CONCLUSIONS: Social support and optimism were associated with oral health. Impact of dental problems showed buffering of high support when optimism was low, and high optimism when support was low.
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors largely external to the individual--such as social support and those that are inherently dispositional, like optimism--may both play a role in determining oral health outcomes and serve to buffer the effect of each other. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess associations of social support and optimism on oral health. METHOD: In 2005-2006, n = 1,859 persons around 30 years old were surveyed to collect data on social support, optimism, oral health-related quality of life, and caries experience. RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses found high social support associated (P < 0.05) with fewer (mean ± SE) decayed teeth (0.6 ± 0.1) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.7 ± 0.2) compared to low support (1.0 ± 0.2 and 4.5 ± 0.4 respectively). High optimism was associated with fewer missing teeth (2.1 ± 0.2) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.1 ± 0.2) compared to low optimism (2.9 ± 0.2 and 3.8 ± 0.2, respectively). Multivariate regressions adjusted for dental visiting, toothbrushing, sex, income, work status and education showed social support and optimism had (P < 0.05) negative associations with missing teeth (β = -1.0) and caries experience (β = -1.5) for high support/high optimism compared to low support/low optimism. All three non-reference combinations of support/optimism showed negative associations (β = -1.6 to -2.4) with impact of problems compared to low support/low optimism. CONCLUSIONS: Social support and optimism were associated with oral health. Impact of dental problems showed buffering of high support when optimism was low, and high optimism when support was low.
Authors: David S Brennan; Kiran A Singh; A John Spencer; Kaye F Roberts-Thomson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-10-20 Impact factor: 3.186