Factor analyses of the Oral Health Impact Profile – Overview and studied population

Abstract

Purpose A desideratum of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) instruments - such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) - is that they accurately reflect the structure of the measured construct(s). With this goal in mind, the Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (DOQ) Project was proposed to investigate the number and nature of OHRQoL dimensions measured by OHIP. In this report, we describe our aggregate data set for the factor analyses in the project, which consists of responses to the 49-item OHIP from general population subjects and prosthodontics patients from 6 countries, including a large age range of adult subjects and both genders. Material and methods The DOQ Project's aggregate data set combines data from 35 individual studies conducted in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Slovenia, and Sweden. Results The combined data set includes 10,778 OHIPs from 9,348 individuals (N=6,349 general population subjects, N=2,999 prosthodontic patients). To elucidate the OHIP latent structure, the aggregated data were split into a Learning Sample (N=5,173) for exploratory analyses and a Validation Sample (N=5,022) for confirmatory analyses. Additional data (N=583) were assigned to a third data set. Conclusion The Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Project contains a large amount of international data and is representative of populations where OHIP is intended to be used. It is well-suited to assess the dimensionality of the questionnaire.

Association of overjet and overbite with esthetic impairments of oral health-related quality of life

“…The need for patient-based data on esthetics has led to the development of specific instruments like the Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale (OASIS) [27], the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ) [23], or the Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES) [24]. At the same time, esthetics is an important component of OHRQoL [19,20] and should thus be measurable via established OHRQoL instruments. In adults, one of the most extensively investigated and most widely used instrument of this type is the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) [41].…”

“…Die Notwendigkeit der Erfassbarkeit der vom Patienten wahrgenommenen Ästhetik hat zur Entwicklung spezifischer Instrumente geführt, wie der OASIS (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale) [27], dem PIDAQ (Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire) [23] und der OES (Orofacial Esthetic Scale) [24]. Gleichzeitig ist die Ästhetik eine wichtige Komponente der mundgesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität insgesamt [19,20] …”

“…Esthetics was not a separate category among its initially seven dimensions. However, it has been included as a separate dimension [20] by the international Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life project [19]. Two of six questions in this dimension do not directly address esthetics but indirectly via psychosocial impairments (worried, self-conscious).…”

“…Ästhetik war bei den ursprünglich sieben Dimensionen des OHIP keine eigenständige Dimension. Im internationalen Dimensions of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Project [19] stellte sich Ästhetik aber als eigenständige Dimension dar [20]. Von den sechs Fragen in dieser Dimension erfassen zwei Fragen (Sorgen gemacht, Gefühl der Unsicherheit) eher indirekt psychosoziale Begleiterscheinungen als die Ästhe-tik direkt.…”

The course of prosthodontic patients’ oral health-related quality of life over a period of 2 years

“…7 Recent research revealed that the OHIP covers the four main domains of OHRQoL, namely Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact. [8][9][10] The most widely used and methodologically best investigated OHRQoL instrument, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] the OHIP provides both norms 18,19 and minimal important differences, 1,20 allowing the researcher and clinician to rate not only the clinical significance of studies' findings but also to compare those findings across many different populations.…”