Development and validation of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile - Preschool version.

OBJECTIVE: The Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP) is a validated instrument created to measure the oral health-related quality of life of school-aged children. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a preschool version of the COHIP (COHIP-PS) for children aged 2-5. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: The COHIP-PS was developed and validated using a multi-stage process consisting of item selection, face validity testing, item impact testing, reliability and validity testing, and factor analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional convenience sample of caregivers having children 2-5 years old from four groups completed item clarity and impact forms. Groups were recruited from pediatric health clinics or preschools/daycare centers, speech clinics, dental clinics, or cleft/craniofacial centers. Participants had a variety of oral health-related conditions, including caries, congenital orofacial anomalies, and speech/language deficiencies such as articulation and language disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: COHIP-PS. RESULTS: The COHIP-PS was found to have acceptable internal validity (a = 0.71) and high test-retest reliability (0.87), though internal validity was below the accepted threshold for the community sample. While discriminant validity results indicated significant differences across study groups, the overall magnitude of differences was modest. Results from confirmatory factor analyses support the use of a four-factor model consisting of 11 items across oral health, functional well-being, social-emotional well-being, and self-image domains. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life is an integral factor in understanding and assessing children's well-being. The COHIP-PS is a validated oral health-related quality of life measure for preschool children with cleft or other oral conditions.

Quality Appraisal of Child Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Measures: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Children's oral health-related quality of life (COHQoL) measures are well known and widely used. However, rigorous systematic reviews of these measures and analyses of their quality are in absence. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and quantitatively assess the quality of COHQoL measures through a scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature search of PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), HaPI (Health and Psychosocial Instruments), and DOSS (Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source). STUDY ELIGIBILITY: The measure's focus was COHQoL; the child age ranged from 5 to 14 years; the publication was either a research article or a systematic review and related to caries; and it was written in English or had an English abstract. Two authors independently selected the studies. Disagreements were reconciled by group discussions with a third author. APPRAISAL: The International Society for Quality of Life Research minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures were used for quality appraisal. SYNTHESIS: Descriptive analysis. RESULTS: We identified 18 measures. Their quality scores ranged from 9.5 to 15.0 on a scale of 16. The quality appeared to bear no relationship to the citation and use of these measures. However, elements of these measures might be more useful than others, depending on the age-specific use and primary quality concerns. LIMITATIONS: Some of the information on the minimum standards of the 18 measures cannot be found in the existing literature. Measures published without English abstract were not searched. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of these measures is suboptimal. Researchers and practitioners in this field should exercise caution when choosing and using these measures. Efforts at improving the quality of the COHQoL measures, such as refining existing ones or developing new measures, are warranted. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Researchers, clinician scientists, and clinicians can use the results of this study when deciding which oral health-related quality of life measure they wish to use in children.

An Economic Evaluation of a Comprehensive School-Based Caries Prevention Program.

INTRODUCTION: Current economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth. METHODS: To calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY). RESULTS: We first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway's treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, -$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, -$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, -$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, -$239.77). CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.

School-Based Caries Prevention, Tooth Decay, and the Community Environment.

The school and community context can contribute to inequity in child oral health. Whether the school and community affect the effectiveness of school-based caries prevention is unknown. The association between the school and community environment and dental caries, as well as their moderating effects with school-based caries prevention, was assessed using multilevel mixed-effects regression. Data were derived from a 6-y prospective cohort study of children participating in a school-based caries prevention program. For the school and community, living in a dental-shortage area and the proportion of children receiving free or reduced lunch were significantly related to an increased risk of dental caries at baseline. Caries prevention was associated with a significant per-visit decrease in the risk of untreated caries, but the rate of total caries experience increased over time. Caries prevention was more effective in children who had prior dental care at baseline and in schools with a higher proportion of low socioeconomic status students. There was significant variation across schools in the baseline prevalence of dental caries and the effect of prevention over time, although effects were modest. The school and community environment have a direct impact on oral health and moderate the association between school-based caries prevention and dental caries. Knowledge Transfer Statement: School-based caries prevention can be an effective means to reduce oral health inequity by embedding dental care within schools. However, the socioeconomic makeup of schools and characteristics of the surrounding community can affect the impact of school-based care.