A 7-day recall period for a clinical application of the oral health impact profile questionnaire

Abstract

Objectives Aims were to investigate and compare the validity and reliability of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) scores referencing 7-day and one-month recall periods in international prosthodontic patients. Material and Methods A sample of 267 patients (mean age = 54.0 years, SD = 17.2 years, 58% women) with stable oral health-related quality of life was recruited from prosthodontic treatment centers in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, and Sweden. These patients completed the OHIP on two occasions using a new 7-day recall period and the traditional one-month recall period. OHIP score validity and reliability were investigated with structural equation models (SEMs) that included OHIPpast 7 days and OHIPone-month latent factors and single indicator measures of global oral health status. The SEMs assessed measurement invariance and the relative validities of the two OHIP latent factors (representing the two recall periods). Results The SEMs provided cogent evidence for recall period measurement invariance for the two OHIP forms and equal validities (r = .48) with external measures of global oral health status. Conclusion When assessed in international prosthodontic patients, OHIP scores using the new 7-day recall period were as reliable and valid as the scores using the one-month recall period. Clinical relevance Conceptual advantages make a 7-day recall period a preferred frame of reference in clinical applications of the OHIP questionnaire.

The Spanish Language 5-Item Oral Health Impact Profile

“…However, other types of validity or reliability and other psychometric properties, such as responsiveness or sensitivity to change, exist but were not investigated. For OHIP in general, information about response format, retest effects, administration method effects, response shift in retrospective OHRQoL assessment and recall periods is available. We do not consider that there is any reason why such findings should differ across OHIP versions.…”

Prevalence and oral health‐related quality of life of self‐reported orofacial conditions in Sweden

“…In our study, we asked about having TMD pain symptoms during the ‘last month’, following the DC/TMD protocol (Schiffman et al , ) which corresponds with the most widely used recall period in the OHIP (John et al , ). OHIP can also employ a shorter recall period of 1 week (Waller et al , ), but this recall period is more useful for clinical applications where the current OHRQoL is of more interest than the impact over longer periods of time, which is better suited for public health surveys such as ours. To facilitate comparison among the four studied conditions, we standardized this timeframe.…”

Integration of oral health-related quality of life instruments

“…The international collaborators of the DOQ Project came from the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Zagreb, Croatia; the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; the Department of Prosthodontics, University of Pécs, Hungary; the Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, Japan; the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and the Centre of Oral Rehabilitation, Prosthetic Dentistry, Norrköping, Sweden. In each participating center, we targeted a consecutive sample of prosthodontic patients to study a new, one-week recall period for OHIP in a cross-sectional study [19]. In this study, patients were assessed on two occasions when their OHRQoL was assumed to be stable.…”

“…For the present study, only the OHIP data with the one-month recall period were used. For details see our previous publication [19]. Institutional Review Boards reviewed and approved the studies in Croatia (Ethical Board of the School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 05-PA-26-55/06, PDS-103/09-10), Hungary (Ethics Committee of the University of Pecs Faculty of Medicine, 2009–3562), Germany (Institutional Review Board of the Medical Association in Hamburg, Germany, PV3530), Japan (Ethics Committees of Showa University, #2007-29), Slovenia (National Medical Ethic Committee of the Republic of Slovenia, 124/02/13), and Sweden (Regional Ethics Review Board at Linköping University Hospital, 72/04, M208-07).…”