Mark D Macek1, Kathryn A Atchison2, Haiyan Chen1, William Wells3, Don Haynes3, Ruth M Parker4, Shurouk Azzo5. 1. University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. University of California, Los Angeles, School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Schaefer Center for Public Policy, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. NYU-Langone Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In 2010, a health literacy instrument designed to measure oral health conceptual knowledge was introduced. This developmental work was limited in that it included a relatively small and homogeneous study population and few oral health measures against which to test concurrent validity. The purpose of the present investigation is to expand upon the earlier work by utilizing a larger study sample and additional outcome variables. METHODS: Data for this report came from the Multi-site Oral Health Literacy Research Study (MOHLRS), a large, cross-sectional survey conducted at two university-based dental clinics in the United States. MOHLRS included multiple assessments administered during face-to-face interviews. Conceptual knowledge was measured with the Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge (CMOHK). Questions about self-efficacy, utilization, and dental beliefs and attitudes were also asked. Covariates included recruitment site, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, and languages spoken. RESULTS: Overall, 18% of 909 adult participants exhibited "low" conceptual knowledge. CMOHK scores were significantly associated with three health literacy instruments, the REALM, Short-test of functional health literacy in adults (TOFHLA), and confidence filling out forms. In both bivariate and multivariable analyses, CMOHK scores were also significantly associated with dental beliefs and attitudes and self-efficacy to prevent both dental caries and periodontal disease. CMOHK scores were not associated with utilization, measured either as having a dental visit or a dental cleaning in the last year. CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation provides additional support for the CMOHK's validity. Researchers are encouraged to incorporate oral health conceptual knowledge into their theoretical frameworks, especially as it relates to beliefs and self-efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: In 2010, a health literacy instrument designed to measure oral health conceptual knowledge was introduced. This developmental work was limited in that it included a relatively small and homogeneous study population and few oral health measures against which to test concurrent validity. The purpose of the present investigation is to expand upon the earlier work by utilizing a larger study sample and additional outcome variables. METHODS: Data for this report came from the Multi-site Oral Health Literacy Research Study (MOHLRS), a large, cross-sectional survey conducted at two university-based dental clinics in the United States. MOHLRS included multiple assessments administered during face-to-face interviews. Conceptual knowledge was measured with the Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge (CMOHK). Questions about self-efficacy, utilization, and dental beliefs and attitudes were also asked. Covariates included recruitment site, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, and languages spoken. RESULTS: Overall, 18% of 909 adult participants exhibited "low" conceptual knowledge. CMOHK scores were significantly associated with three health literacy instruments, the REALM, Short-test of functional health literacy in adults (TOFHLA), and confidence filling out forms. In both bivariate and multivariable analyses, CMOHK scores were also significantly associated with dental beliefs and attitudes and self-efficacy to prevent both dental caries and periodontal disease. CMOHK scores were not associated with utilization, measured either as having a dental visit or a dental cleaning in the last year. CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation provides additional support for the CMOHK's validity. Researchers are encouraged to incorporate oral health conceptual knowledge into their theoretical frameworks, especially as it relates to beliefs and self-efficacy.
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Divya S Parthasarathy; Colman P J McGrath; Susan M Bridges; Hai Ming Wong; Cynthia K Y Yiu; Terry K F Au Journal: Oral Health Prev Dent Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.256
Authors: Leonard A Cohen; Arthur J Bonito; Donald R Akin; Richard J Manski; Mark D Macek; Robert R Edwards; Llewellyn J Cornelius Journal: Spec Care Dentist Date: 2009 Mar-Apr
Authors: Mark D Macek; Kathryn A Atchison; Maria Rosa Watson; Jennifer Holtzman; William Wells; Bonnie Braun; Linda Aldoory; Diana Messadi; Melanie Gironda; Don Haynes; Ruth M Parker; Haiyan Chen; Susan Coller; Jessica Richards Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Angela G Brega; Luohua Jiang; Rachel L Johnson; Anne R Wilson; Sarah J Schmiege; Judith Albino Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Deborah A Verlinden; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Caren I Lanting; Jacobus P van Wouwe; Annemarie A Schuller Journal: Eur J Oral Sci Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 2.612
Authors: R Valdez; K Spinler; D Dingoyan; G Aarabi; C Kofahl; U Seedorf; G Heydecke; D R Reissmann; B Lieske Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2021-08-27