M T John1, M Omara2, N Su3, T List4, S Sekulic5, B Häggman-Henrikson6, C M Visscher7, K Bekes8, D R Reissmann9, K Baba10, O Schierz11, N Theis-Mahon12, K Fueki13, T Stamm14, L Bondemark15, I Oghli16, A van Wijk3, P Larsson17. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, Minneapolis. Electronic address: johnx055@umn.edu. 2. Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Arthritis and Rehabilitation, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Social Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden; Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Sweden. 5. Dental Division, Department for Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 6. Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden; Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences. 7. Department of Orofacial Pain and Disfunction, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 10. Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan. 11. Department of Prosthodontics and Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Germany. 12. Health Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 13. Removable Partial Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan. 14. Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 15. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö, Sweden. 16. Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden; Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences; Department of Oral Basic Sciences, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia. 17. Department of Orofacial Pain and Jaw Function, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden; Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences; Centre for Oral Rehabilitation, Folktandvården Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: OHIP's original seven-domain structure does not fit empirical data, but a psychometrically sound and clinically more plausible structure with the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact has emerged. Consequently, use and scoring of available OHIP versions need to be revisited. AIM: We assessed how well the overall construct OHRQoL and its four dimensions were measured with several OHIP versions (20, 19, 14, and 5 items) to derive recommendations which instruments should be used and how to score them. METHODS: Data came from the "Dimensions of OHRQoL Project" and used the project's learning sample (5,173 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects with 49-item OHIP data). We computed correlations among OHIP versions' summary scores. Correlations between OHRQoL dimensions, on one hand, and OHIP versions' domain scores or OHIP-5's items, on the other hand, were also computed. OHIP use and scoring recommendations were derived for psychometrically solid but also practical OHRQoL assessment. RESULTS: Summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19- and 49-item versions correlated highly (r = 0.91-0.98), suggesting similar OHRQoL construct measurement across versions. The OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact were best measured by the OHIP domain scores for Physical Disability, Physical Pain, Psychological Discomfort, and Handicap, respectively. CONCLUSION: Recommendations were derived which OHIP should be preferably used and how OHIP versions should be scored to capture the overall construct and the dimensions of OHRQoL. Psychometrically solid and practical OHRQoL assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with the 5-item OHIP.
BACKGROUND: OHIP's original seven-domain structure does not fit empirical data, but a psychometrically sound and clinically more plausible structure with the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact has emerged. Consequently, use and scoring of available OHIP versions need to be revisited. AIM: We assessed how well the overall construct OHRQoL and its four dimensions were measured with several OHIP versions (20, 19, 14, and 5 items) to derive recommendations which instruments should be used and how to score them. METHODS: Data came from the "Dimensions of OHRQoL Project" and used the project's learning sample (5,173 prosthodontic patients and general population subjects with 49-item OHIP data). We computed correlations among OHIP versions' summary scores. Correlations between OHRQoL dimensions, on one hand, and OHIP versions' domain scores or OHIP-5's items, on the other hand, were also computed. OHIP use and scoring recommendations were derived for psychometrically solid but also practical OHRQoL assessment. RESULTS: Summary scores of 5-, 14-, 19- and 49-item versions correlated highly (r = 0.91-0.98), suggesting similar OHRQoL construct measurement across versions. The OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact were best measured by the OHIP domain scores for Physical Disability, Physical Pain, Psychological Discomfort, and Handicap, respectively. CONCLUSION: Recommendations were derived which OHIP should be preferably used and how OHIP versions should be scored to capture the overall construct and the dimensions of OHRQoL. Psychometrically solid and practical OHRQoL assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with the 5-item OHIP.
Authors: Gyula Szabó; Mike T John; Ildikó Szántó; Gyula Marada; Dóra Kende; András Szentpétery Journal: Acta Odontol Scand Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 2.331
Authors: Mike T John; Diana L Miglioretti; Linda LeResche; Thomas D Koepsell; Philippe Hujoel; Wolfgang Micheelis Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Mohammed Nasser Alhajj; Esam Halboub; Nadia Khalifa; Abdullah G Amran; Daniel R Reissmann; Abbas G Abdullah; Mounzer Assad; Abdulghani A Al-Basmi; Fawaz A Al-Ghabri Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Anna Winter; Stefan M Schulz; Marc Schmitter; Roman C Brands; Anton Straub; Alexander Kübler; Anna Borgmann; Stefan Hartmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 4.614