| Literature DB >> 28399864 |
James Rufus John1, Haider Mannan2, Subrat Nargundkar1, Mario D'Souza3, Loc Giang Do4, Amit Arora5,6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular dental attendance is significant in maintaining and improving children's oral health and well-being. This study aims to determine the factors that predict and influence dental visits in primary school children residing in the rural community of Lithgow, New South Wales (NSW), Australia.Entities:
Keywords: Dental visit; Oral health; Rural; School children; Socio-demographics
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28399864 PMCID: PMC5387289 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2232-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Conceptual model showing the influence of community-level, provider-level and patient-level factors on regular dental visiting
Descriptive statistics of socio-demographic and health-behavioural factors influencing 6-monthly dental visit in Lithgow school children
| Factors influencing dental visits. |
| Has the child visited the dentist in the last 6 months? | Chi-squared | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Age of the child (In years - MAD) | 665 | 353 (9.0) | 312 (8.0) | 0.278 |
| Gender of the child | 665 | 0.921 | ||
| Male | 179 (50.7%) | 157 (49.3%) | ||
| Female | 174 (50.3%) | 155 (49.7%) | ||
| Frequency of tooth brushing | 663 | 0.001* | ||
| Once or less | 110 (31.3%) | 135 (43.4%) | ||
| Twice or more | 242 (68.8%) | 176 (56.6%) | ||
| Decayed, missing and filled teeth status | 665 | 0.025* | ||
| No dmft/DMFT | 156 (44.2%) | 165 (52.9%) | ||
| One or more dmft/DMFT | 197 (55.8%) | 147 (47.1%) | ||
| Has the child always lived in Lithgow? | 665 | 0.009* | ||
| Yes | 233 (66.0%) | 120 (34.0%) | ||
| No | 175 (56.1%) | 137 (43.9%) | ||
| Number of Serves of sugar sweetened beverages consumed per day (MAD) | 654 | 346 (2.0) | 307 (3.0) | 0.131 |
| Number of serves of chocolate per day (MAD) | 638 | 337 (1.0) | 301 (1.0) | 0.091 |
| Child in single parent household? | 665 | 0.277 | ||
| Yes | 65 (18.4%) | 68 (21.8%) | ||
| No | 288 (81.6%) | 244 (78.2%) | ||
| Age of the Mother (In years – MAD) | 659 | 348 (37.0) | 311 (36.0) | 0.040* |
| Age of the Fathera (In years – MAD) | 527 | 283 (39.0) | 244 (38.0) | 0.003* |
| Mother’s country of birth | 653 | 0.949 | ||
| Overseas | 29 (8.4%) | 26 (8.5%) | ||
| Australia | 318 (91.6%) | 280 (91.5%) | ||
| Father’s country of birtha | 529 | 0.754 | ||
| Overseas | 20 (7.0%) | 19 (7.8%) | ||
| Australia | 264 (93%) | 226 (92.2%) | ||
| Mother’s Indigenous status | 652 | 0.028* | ||
| Indigenous | 5 (1.4%) | 13 (4.3%) | ||
| Non-Indigenous | 342 (98.6%) | 292 (95.7%) | ||
| Father’s Indigenous statusa | 535 | 0.415 | ||
| Indigenous | 5 (1.8%) | 7 (2.8%) | ||
| Non- Indigenous | 280 (98.2%) | 243 (97.2%) | ||
| Education level of the Mother | 651 | 0.297 | ||
| University or College | 91 (26.2%) | 69 (22.7%) | ||
| High school or vocational training | 256 (73.8%) | 235 (77.3%) | ||
| Education level of the Fathera | 530 | 0.360 | ||
| University or College | 46 (16.3%) | 48 (19.4%) | ||
| High school or vocational training | 236 (83.7%) | 200 (80.6%) | ||
| Mother’s employment | 654 | 0.006* | ||
| Managers and professionals | 75 (21.5%) | 63 (20.7%) | ||
| Skilled workers | 173 (49.6%) | 119 (39%) | ||
| Pensioners and unemployed | 101 (28.9%) | 123 (40.3%) | ||
| Father’s employmenta | 526 | 0.490 | ||
| Managers and professionals | 88 (31%) | 74 (30.6%) | ||
| Skilled workers | 179 (63%) | 147 (60.7%) | ||
| Pensioners and unemployed | 17 (6%) | 21 (8.7%) | ||
| Number of tooth extractions in Mother (MAD) | 665 | 353 (0.0) | 312 (1.0) | 0.139 |
| Number of tooth extractions in Fathera (MAD) | 536 | 286 (0.0) | 250 (2.0) | 0.051 |
| Private health insurance coverage | 628 | <0.001* | ||
| Yes | 161 (48.3%) | 81 (28.7%) | ||
| No | 172 (51.7%) | 214 (72.5%) | ||
| Annual household income | 497 | <0.001* | ||
| High (over 100,000) | 42 (16.8%) | 28 (11.3%) | ||
| Medium (40,000-100,000) | 133 (53.2%) | 101 (4.9%) | ||
| Low (up to 40,000) | 75 (30.0%) | 118 (47.8%) | ||
aLower number of observations noticed in relation to father’s characteristics such as age, country of birth, Indigenous status, education, employment and extraction correspond to the children residing in a single parent household with mothers, where fathers’ details are not applicable
MAD - Only median values were calculated for all continuous covariates because Shapiro-Wilk tests showed that they significantly deviated from following the Normal distribution
*Variables found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) using Pearson’s chi-squared test
Multiple logistic regression of individual and combineda parental characteristics with 6-monthly and twelve-monthly dental visits
| Variables | Model 1 (N = 585) | Model 2 (N = 590) | Model 3 (N = 585) | Model 4 (N = 589) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR with 95% CIb | Adjusted OR with 95% CIb | Adjusted OR with 95% CIb | Adjusted OR with 95% CIb | |
| Age of the subject | 0.92 (0.85, 0.99)* | 0.92 (0.85, 0.99)* | 0.87 (0.79, 0.96)* | 0.88 (0.80, 0.97)* |
| Decayed, missing and filled teeth Status | NS2 | NS2 | ||
| No dmft/DMFT score | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| One or more dmft/DMFT score | 0.64 (0.43, 0.94)* | 0.62 (0.42, 0.92)* | ||
| Serves of chocolate per day | 1.27 (1.05, 1.54)* | 1.27 (1.05, 1.54)* | NS2 | NS2 |
| Education level of the Mother | NS2 | NS2 | NS2 | |
| University or College | 1.00 | |||
| High school or vocational training | 2.28 (1.34, 3.91)* | |||
| Highest employment in the household | NS2 | NS2 | NS2 | |
| Managers and professionals | 1.00 | |||
| Skilled workers | 1.47 (0.69, 3.15)* | |||
| Pensioners and unemployed | 2.64 (1.21, 5.75)* | |||
| Private health insurance coverage | ||||
| Yes | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| No | 0.43 (0.30, 0.60)* | 0.43 (0.30, 0.60)* | 0.54 (0.35, 0.83)* | 0.62 (0.39, 0.97)* |
Model 1 - Original data with outcome variable as 6-month visit and individual parental characteristics
Model 2 – Original data with outcome variable as 6-month visit and combined parental characteristics
Model 3 – Original data with outcome variable as yearly visit and individual parental characteristics
Model 4 - Original data with outcome variable as yearly visit and combined parental characteristics
aCombined parental traits indicate the highest of either parents’ factors such as education, employment and extraction history
OR Odds ratio
bConfidence interval
*Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05)
NS2 Non-significant (p-value > 0.05)
Multiple logistic regression of imputed data comparing individual parental characteristics (6-month and 12-monthly dental visits)
| Variables | Model 5 ( | Model 6 ( |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR with 95% CIa | Adjusted OR with 95% CIa | |
| Age of the subject | 0.91 (0.85, 0.99)* | 0.87 (0.80, 0.96)* |
| Decayed, missing and filled teeth status | NS2 | |
| No dmft/DMFT scores | 1.00 | |
| One or more dmft/DMFT scores | 0.60 (0.42, 0.88)* | |
| Serves of chocolate per day | 1.25 (1.03, 1.52)* | NS2 |
| Education level of the Mother | NS2 | |
| University or College | 1.00 | |
| High school or vocational training | 2.02 (1.23, 3.32)* | |
| Extraction history of Mother | 1.04 (1.00, 1.08)* | NS2 |
| Private health insurance coverage | ||
| Yes | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| No | 0.46 (0.34, 0.64)* | 0.54 (0.36, 0.80)* |
Model 5 - Imputed data with outcome variable as 6-month visit and individual parental characteristics
Model 6 - Imputed data with outcome variable as yearly visit and individual parental characteristics
OR Odds ratio
aConfidence interval
*Statistically significant (p-value < 0.05)
NS2 Non-significant (p-value > 0.05)
Population benchmark comparison of demographic characteristics of Lithgow from ABS census 2011 report
| Socio-demographic characteristics | Survey estimate (observed percentages) % of children (95% CI) | Observed | 2011 census report (expected percentages) % of children |
|---|---|---|---|
| Country of birth of householda | 0.002* | ||
| Overseas | 11.5 (9.07-13.93) | 16.45 | |
| Australia | 88.5 (86.07-90.9) | 83.55 | |
| Indigenous status of householdb | 0.079 | ||
| Indigenous | 4.38 (2.82-5.94) | 5.57 | |
| Non-Indigenous | 95.62 (94.06-97.18) | 94.43 | |
| Highest education level in the household c | 0.267 | ||
| University or College degree | 28.74 (25.29-32.19) | 26.83 | |
| High school or vocational training | 71.26 (67.81-74.71) | 73.17 | |
ӂ Added p-value was obtained from z-test
*Statistically significant at 5 percent level
aChildren were classified to the overseas born category if they had at least one parent who was born overseas
bChildren were classified to the Indigenous category if they had at least one parent who was Indigenous
cChildren were classified to the University or College degree category if they had at least one parent who had a university or college degree