Patients' self‐reported measures of oral health—A validation study on basis of oral health questions used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+

Abstract

Objective To assess the validity of patient self‐reported oral health measures as used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+. Background Information on people's oral health status is important for assessing oral health needs within populations. However, clinical examination is not always possible. Patient self‐reported measures may provide an alternative when time and other resources are scarce. Materials and methods Using oral health items from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), self‐reported measures were collected from 186 patients receiving treatment at Heidelberg University Hospital. Self‐reports were compared with subsequent clinical examinations. Analyses were conducted for patients of all age groups and separately for patients aged 50+ (analogous to the SHARE study population). Diagnostic accuracy, agreement and correlation of patient‐reported information were examined using descriptive statistics and Bland‐Altman plots. Results Patient‐reported presence or absence of a full tooth count was closely related to clinical measurement, both for all age groups (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 92%) and persons aged 50+ (sensitivity: 100% specificity: 94%). Bland‐Altman plots indicate good agreement between patient‐ and clinical reports of the number of teeth at age 50+ (Concordance Correlation Coefficient = 0.95). Discriminatory power of patient‐reporting was good regarding presence vs absence of artificial teeth, but less robust regarding partial vs full replacement of missing teeth. Conclusion Patient self‐evaluations provide reasonable estimates of clinical measures and appear sufficiently accurate for examining variations in the number of teeth, including among populations aged 50+. However, patient reports of the extent of replacement of missing teeth may not constitute reliable reflections of clinical conditions.

Causal Effect of Tooth Loss on Functional Capacity in Older Adults in England: A Natural Experiment

“…Thus, our estimation might be biased if the utilization of fluoride resources differs by regions; however, the frequency of tooth brushing was not different by region in Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 38 . Moreover, data on the number of teeth and IADL was self‐reported; however, high accuracy of self‐reports for number of teeth has been reported previously 54 …”

Causal effect of tooth loss on depression: evidence from a population-wide natural experiment in the USA

“…spearman's ρ >0.20), but adjusting for these variables did not change our findings. A further limitation is related to the self-reported outcome; however, the measurement has been well validated in clinical care settings (Kroenke et al ., 2001; Sekundo et al ., 2019). Finally, the findings may not be directly transferrable to other countries or settings, although the prevalence of severe tooth loss in the USA is similar to the global population (Kassebaum et al ., 2014).…”

“…To evaluate whether the effect of tooth loss varies by population characteristics, analyses stratified by age, year of birth, gender, median household income and dental care utilisation were performed. We also performed a sensitivity analysis by assigning mean, median and mode of the clinically examined number of lost teeth reported in a previous study (Sekundo et al ., 2019) for the brackets of self-reported 1–5 or 6–27 lost teeth.…”

Self-Rated Oral Health and Associated Factors among an Adult Population in Rural India—An Epidemiological Study

“…Studies have shown that it is important to use clinical data along with SROH measures [ 12 ]. Although oral examinations are considered the gold standard to assess oral health status [ 13 ], SROH is a valid method for epidemiological data collection [ 14 , 15 ]. Perceptions of oral health vary among ethnic groups and people of different cultural backgrounds [ 5 ].…”