Effect of dental caries and socioeconomic status on social capital throughout adolescence: a 6-year follow-up

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of clinical and socioeconomic factors on social capital throughout adolescence. A cohort study was performed in 2012 (T1) with a random sample of 1,134 12-year-old adolescents from Santa Maria, Brazil. Questions on socioeconomic factors (maternal education, household income, household crowding) were answered by the parents. Clinicians evaluated their dental caries (decayed, missing, and filled status of permanent teeth) and gingival bleeding (using the Community Periodontal Index). Contextual variables including the mean income of the neighborhood in which the school was located were used (T1). The adolescents were revaluated in 2018 (T2) and answered questions regarding social capital (social trust, social control, empowerment, neighborhood security, and political effectiveness). A path analysis was used to test the relationship between the predictor variables (T1) and social capital (T2). A total of 768 adolescents were reevaluated at a 6-year follow-up (cohort retention rate of 67.7%). Most of the adolescents were girls, with a low household income, about 40% had caries experience (T1), and about 64% had high social capital (T2). The highest neighborhood's mean income was related to a lower household income in T1 (p < 0.01), and this was directly related to a low social capital in T2 (p = 0.04). Furthermore, caries experience at T1 was directly associated with low social capital at T2 (p = 0.03). Socioeconomic factors were also related to caries experience. Individuals who lived in neighborhoods with greater inequality such as families with a low household income and those with untreated dental caries in early adolescence, had a low social capital after follow-up.

Self-Reported Dental Caries by Mexican Elementary and Middle-School Schoolchildren in the Context of Socioeconomic Indicators: A National Ecological Study

“…Many causes of inequalities are difficult to identify, in part because they change in relation to their social context [22]. Several studies found significant associations between lower socioeconomic status and higher risk of dental caries [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Social factors influence variables associated with caries through modifying living conditions of the individual; it is feasible to gain a more accurate understanding of caries distribution through examining such a relationship.…”

The Impact of Parental Education on Schoolchildren’s Oral Health—A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Romania

“…Several psychosocial and materialistic concepts state that low socioeconomic families are exposed to higher health risks, including lack of access to care and worse environmental factors and living conditions [ 41 ]. From the psychosocial perspective, people living in underprivileged communities are more exposed to anxiety and stress, having an impact on the general quality of life, general health outcomes, and oral health.…”

“…Human relationships within the community are considered social capital, which is beneficial both to the individual as well as to the community [ 42 ]. An individual having high social capital also benefits from better health behaviors and receives more information from better resources, which can enhance their health status [ 41 , 42 ]. It has been shown that in communities with high social capital, people have a higher life expectancy, lower morbidity and mortality, and better health knowledge [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].…”

Sense of coherence moderates the relationship between social capital and oral health‑related quality of life in schoolchildren: a 10-year cohort study

“…The items used to assess social capital at T1 and T2 are considered reliable proxies of social capital according to the literature [ 5 , 23 ]. Participants were classified as with high social capital (at least one source of social network or trust) or low social capital (absence of any source of network or trust) for analytical purposes as previously suggested [ 24 , 25 ].…”