This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Donaldson, A.N. Articles by Bower, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Donaldson, A.N. Articles by Bower, E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Effects of Social Class and Dental Attendance on Oral Health

¹ King’s College London Dental Institute, Weston Education Centre, Off 262 Cutcombe Road, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RJ, UK;
² Emeritus Professor of Biostatistics, King’s College London, UK;
³ Department of Oral Health Services Research, King’s College London Dental Institute, Weston Education Centre, Off 262 Cutcombe Road, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RJ, UK;
⁴ School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle, UK;
⁵ Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, King’s College London Dental Institute, UK

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Path diagram for the theoretical model. The model depicts the hypothesis that the socio-economic gradient in the number of sound teeth in adults (teeth) is explained in part by dental attendance patterns (regular), which in turn are determined by the effect of socio-economic status (socio-econ) on barriers to dental attendance (barriers). Socioeconomic status is represented by social class (social) and weekly household income (income). Barriers to dental attendance include the importance given to visiting the dentist regularly (important), finding NHS treatment expensive (cost), wanting simple rather than intricate treatment (fancy), and feeling anxious when attending the dentist (anxiety). Age is also included in the model, since it is a significant predictor of the number of teeth. The goodness-of-fit indices were: the Akaike’s information criterion, AIC = 929; the root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = 0.20 (0.19, 0.21); the comparative fit index, CFI = 0.60; normed fit index, NFI = 0.60; and the non-normed fit index, NNFI = 0.40.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Path diagram showing the significant paths of the final model. MLE Estimators (Standard Error) and significance level. Based on the working sample of n = 1754 persons. P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; NS, P-value > 0.05. The goodness-of-fit indices were: the Akaike’s information criterion, AIC = 107; the root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA = 0.06 (0.05, 0.07); the comparative fit index, CFI = 0.94; the normed fit index, NFI = 0.94; and the non-normed fit index, NNFI = 0.90.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 1, 60-64 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700110


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?