2022
DOI: 10.1111/jphd.12539
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A psychometric network perspective to oral health literacy: Examining the replicability of network properties across the general community and older adults from Brazil

Abstract: Objectives To evaluate the replicability of oral health literacy (OHL) network models across the general community and a sample of older adults from Brazil. Methods Data were obtained from two oral health surveys conducted with a total of 1138 participants. OHL was measured using the short form Health Literacy in Dentistry scale (HeLD‐14). A regularized partial correlation network was estimated for each sample. Dimensionality and structural stability were examined via exploratory graph analysis. Network proper… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 36 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of this study indicated that the older the patient, the lower their level of oral health literacy. Speci cally, it showed that the mean oral health literacy score of the patients was 45.2 ± 8.2, which is similar to the Brazilian study of 43.6 ± 10.5 [34]. Meanwhile, elderly patients aged 60 years and older scored 40.5 ± 9.1 points, which is almost the same as those of Soares and colleagues: 40.4 ± 11.5 points [34].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…The results of this study indicated that the older the patient, the lower their level of oral health literacy. Speci cally, it showed that the mean oral health literacy score of the patients was 45.2 ± 8.2, which is similar to the Brazilian study of 43.6 ± 10.5 [34]. Meanwhile, elderly patients aged 60 years and older scored 40.5 ± 9.1 points, which is almost the same as those of Soares and colleagues: 40.4 ± 11.5 points [34].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%