Determining the minimal important difference of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Chronic Periodontitis

Abstract

Aim Building on previous psychometric work, we aimed to further assess the minimally important difference (MID) of the Oral Health Impact Profile for Chronic Periodontitis (OHIP‐CP). Methods In total, 240 consecutive patients with chronic periodontitis were recruited in the study. The OHIP‐CP was completed at baseline and after six weeks. Methodology testing included the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and MID. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the fit of the previously proposed three‐factor model. The MID of this questionnaire was determined by applying anchor‐based and distribution‐based approaches. Results The CFA supported a three‐factor model for the OHIP‐CP with acceptable fit to the data. The fit indices were χ2/df = 2.231, GFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.969 and CFI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.076. The OHIP‐CP scores showed significant improvements after treatment (p < .001). The anchor‐based MIDs of OHIP‐CP for “oral function restriction,” “oral pain” and “psychological and social impact,” and total score were 2, 1, 4 and 7 points, respectively. The effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) for the OHIP‐CP were moderate to large. Conclusions The MID of the OHIP‐CP is recommended for interpreting clinically meaningful change in oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) over time.

The Efficacy of Minocycline Hydrochloride Combined with Multiple Antibiotic Paste in Elderly Patients with Chronic Periodontitis and Concomitant Pulp Lesions

“…5, and IL-6 in the experimental group before treatment were (4.06 ± 1.23) μg/L, (6.01 ± 2.15) ng/L, (8.00 ± 2.59) ng/L, (11.58 ± 3.41) μ/L, (ng/L), and (7.51 ± 3.01) ng/L, respectively. e levels of CRP, TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-5, and IL-6 in the experimental group after treatment were (1.64 ± 0.77) μg/L, (3.19 ± 1.03) ng/L, (4.13 ± 1.91) ng/L, (6.99 ± 2.38) μ/L, and (3.05 ± 0.79) ng/L, respectively.…”

“…When the opportunity of treating the disease in its early stages is missed, the treatment options left are chiefly surgical, such as dental extraction among others. However, these forms of treatment are expensive, and a proportion of patients are not able to afford them [4][5][6]. Such patients are then condemned to long periods of pain, much to the detriment of their physical and mental health.…”

The oral and systemic health impact profile for periodontal disease (OSHIP‐Perio)—Part 2: Responsiveness and minimal important difference

“…This supports the findings from previous studies which showed an improvement in the total OHRQoL scores in periodontal patients after treatment. 8,22 Based on the results shown, the newly developed OSHIP-Perio instrument demonstrated responsiveness to change comparable with the OHIP instrument and its short-form derivatives. When analysing the impact of periodontal disease on both HRQoL and OHRQoL, it may be more advantageous to use the 14-item OSHIP-Perio with comparable responsiveness rather than the 49-item OHIP-49 in terms of practical utility.…”

“…6,7 While the first dental-specific OHRQoL instrument for chronic periodontitis, the OHIP-CP, was developed and assessed for its responsiveness, it was not designed to include the wider systemic health impact. 8 An improvement in the health status measure score which is statistically significant may not equate to a clinically relevant or perceivable benefit from the patient's perspective. 9 The term 'minimal important difference (MID)' measures the smallest difference in the health status measure scores that is perceived by the patients to be important, either beneficial or detrimental, that is significant enough for the clinician to consider a change in the patient's management.…”

“…Responsiveness to change is an essential attribute of a health status measure to assess the effectiveness of treatment intervention, and this can be evaluated by comparing the pre‐ and post‐intervention scores 6,7 . While the first dental‐specific OHRQoL instrument for chronic periodontitis, the OHIP‐CP, was developed and assessed for its responsiveness, it was not designed to include the wider systemic health impact 8 …”