Oral status and homebound status: A 6‐year bidirectional exploratory prospective cohort study

Abstract

Objectives:Little is known about the association between oral status and homebound status, and there is a possibility of a bidirectional relationship between them. In this exploratory prospective cohort study, we examined the association between four oral status measurements and being homebound bidirectionally. Methods:We used 2010-2016 panel data gathered from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study. All functionally independent participants aged 65 years or older (n = 26,579) were included in this study. Multiple imputation and Poisson regression were used for analyses. We adjusted for age, sex, education, comorbidity, and depressive symptoms. Results:In the fully adjusted model, the prevalence ratio (PR) of being homebound at follow-up was 1.42 for having <20 remaining teeth, 1.28 for having chewing difficulty, 0.99 for having choking experience, and 0.94 for having dry mouth at baseline. Reversely, being homebound at baseline predicted having chewing difficulty at follow-up (PR = 1.17), while no significant association was demonstrated with having <20 teeth (PR = 1.00), choking experience (PR = 1.06), and dry mouth (PR = 1.02). Conclusion:Chewing difficulty and having <20 remaining teeth predicted homebound status after 6 years. Reversely, homebound status at baseline only predicted having chewing difficulty at follow-up. These findings may help to determine the oral frailty assessment measures for older people.

Frequency of Going Outdoors and Risk of Poor Oral Health Among Older Japanese Adults: A Longitudinal Cohort From the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study

“…To our knowledge, this is the first study to find an association between the frequency of going outdoors and the risk of poor oral health among older adults, using a large set of longitudinal cohort data. Our results extend the findings of a previous longitudinal study in which the frequency of going outdoors was associated with poor oral health 6 , in which the composite outcome was not examined. In addition, being homebound was associated with a prevalence of chewing difficulty; prevalence ratio (95% CI) =1.17…”

“…The association between poor oral health and the risk of homebound status (going outdoors less than once a week) 5,6 and the opposite association 6 have been reported previously by the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES). Homebound status or going outdoors less frequently is associated with reduced muscle mass 7 , increased blood glucose levels 8 , poor self-oral care 9 and professional care 10 , and reduced sunlight exposure 11,12 , which the risk of poor oral health.…”

“…(1.05-1.30), but not with the prevalence of the number of teeth <20, choking experience, or dry mouth: prevalence ratios (95% CIs) =1.00 (0.95-1.04), 1.06 (0.92-1.22), and 1.02 (0.88-1.18), respectively 6 .…”

Oral health of homebound older adults followed by primary care: a cross sectional study

“…The literature also points out relevant obstacles in the access to oral health care in this population, especially dental care. Since they cannot leave their homes because they have comorbidities, physical limitations, and loss of autonomy 30 , there is a need for oral health care in their homes 31 . Therefore, it is necessary that the actions, especially those carried out by PHC, are within the reach of this population, through home care services, which must include the oral health team 32,33 .…”

Saúde bucal de pessoas idosas domiciliadas acompanhadas na atenção primária: estudo transversal

“…A literatura também aponta relevantes barreiras de acesso ao cuidado à saúde bucal nessa população, em especial à assistência odontológica. Ao não saírem de casa por terem comorbidades, limitações físicas e perda de autonomia 30 há a necessidade de que o cuidado à saúde bucal chegue ao domicílio 31 . Logo, é preciso que as ações, especialmente as levadas à cabo pela APS, estejam ao alcance dessa população, por meio dos serviços de atenção domiciliar, que devem incluir a equipe de saúde bucal 32,33 .…”