| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
How Do Factors at Different Stages of the Lifecourse Contribute to Oral-health-related Quality of Life in Middle Age for Men and Women?
1 School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; and Correspondence: * corresponding author, Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK; M.S.Pearce{at}ncl.ac.uk
The relative contributions of factors operating in fetal life, childhood, and adulthood to the risk of disease in middle age have become important research issues, but self-perceived oral health has rarely been considered in this context. This study investigated the impact of risk factors operating throughout life on self-perceived oral health, according to the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), at age 50 yrs in 305 individuals from the Newcastle Thousand Families cohort. Factors from early and adult life contributed to the OHIP scores, but in men, self-perceived oral health was mostly explained by factors operating early in life. In women, the number of teeth retained in adulthood had a more prominent impact. Lifecourse influences on oral-health-related quality of life appear different for men and women, which may have implications for the effectiveness of public health interventions and health promotion.
Key Words: cohort epidemiology oral-health-related quality of life socio-economic status teeth
Epidemiological studies have indicated that factors including age, gender, tooth retention, clinical condition, dental attendance, socio-economic status, cultural background, dental anxiety, and smoking may influence oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) (Kelly et al., 2000; Slade, 2002; McGrath and Bedi, 2004; Steele et al., 2004). Indicators of OHRQoL are of growing importance in primary dental care when a patients burden of oral conditions is considered (McGrath and Bedi, 1999a). Such indicators are also useful in the identification of target groups, advocacy for oral health promotion or treatment programs, and service evaluation (Slade and Spencer, 1994a). A range of validated instruments assessing the impact of oral health on quality of life has been developed, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) (Slade and Spencer, 1994b). The 49 questions in the OHIP capture seven conceptually formulated dimensions (functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical, psychological and social disability, and handicap) based on Lockers (1988) theoretical model of oral health. Previous studies with the OHIP used for the investigation of influences on OHRQoL have been mostly cross-sectional. The Thousand Families cohort—originally comprised of all 1142 children born in May and June, 1947, to mothers resident within the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in northern England—provides an opportunity to apply a lifecourse approach to OHRQoL, the hypothesis being that different stages of life contribute in different ways to OHRQoL for men and women.
Participants were members of the original cohort who contacted the study team in response to media publicity or were traced through the United Kingdom National Health Service Central Register. Between October, 1996, and December, 1998, self-completion questionnaires on adult health and lifestyle were sent out, and study members were invited to attend for clinical examination. Ethical approval was obtained from appropriate Local Research Ethics Committees. All participants gave their written informed consent.
Early Life Data
Adult Life Data The 49 questions in the OHIP asked how frequently individuals had experienced a specific impact during the preceding year. Responses were made on a Likert-type scale (4 = very often, 3 = fairly often, 2 = occasionally, 1 = hardly ever, and 0 = never). The responses were summarized into three indicator variables: the total score (summed) and two frequency scores reporting the number of impacts occurring either fairly or very often (high frequency) or occasionally or more (lower and high frequency). The three different indicators describe slightly different things. Total OHIP score represents the overall burden of oral problems; this may be many low-scoring impacts, a few high-scoring impacts, or a mixture. The number of impacts occurring fairly or very often represents the presence and number of more severe problems. The use of both analyzed in parallel allows for greater insight into the relationships observed.
Statistical Analysis
Standardized regression coefficients (b), denoting the increase in OHIP indicators for a standard deviation increase in an explanatory variable, are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
The percentage of total variance in each OHIP indicator directly accounted for by each lifecourse stage was estimated by the difference in R2 (%) between regression models with and without the group of variables in the lifecourse stage of interest (Fig
Of the original 1142 study members recruited in 1947, 832 (72%) were traced at age 50. Of these, 574 (69%) completed the health and lifestyle questionnaire, and 305 (27%) (127 men, 178 women) of the 329 study members attending the dental examination fully completed the OHIP questionnaire. This sample did not differ significantly from the members of the original cohort not included in this analysis, in terms of any of the factors acting at birth [standardized birth weight (p = 0.4), socio-economic status (p = 0.4), and housing (p = 0.3)] and during infancy and childhood (socioeconomic status, p = 0.8), with the exception of gender (Pearce et al., 2004). There were more women in this sample than men compared with the original cohort (p > 0.05). Descriptive statistics are given in Tables 1
Predictors of Oral-health-related Quality of Life Men Social class at birth (b = 3.48, 95%CI 0.36, 6.59, p = 0.031) and number of retained teeth (b = –0.57, 95%CI –0.95, –0.18, p = 0.004) were significantly associated with total OHIP score. However, in the multivariable model, only the number of teeth remained significant (p = 0.01). Social class at birth and at age 5 yrs (b = 0.69, 95%CI 0.24, 1.14, p = 0.003) and housing conditions at birth (b = 0.53, 95%CI 0.07, 0.98, p = 0.024) were associated with the number of OHIP impacts occurring often. The number of retained teeth was the only significant factor predictor of the number of OHIP impacts occurring occasionally or more (b = –1.69, 95%CI –2.72, –0.67, p = 0.002).
Women
Relative Contribution of Each Lifecourse Stage
In both genders, early-life factors accounted for the greatest proportion of variation in the number of OHIP impacts occurring fairly or very often. The number of retained teeth again directly explained a greater amount of variation in women (9%) than in men (0.5%). For the number of impacts occurring occasionally or more, adult socio-economic position and lifestyle, including the indirect effects mediated through the number of retained teeth, accounted for the greatest proportion of variation in men. The direct impact of tooth retention explained the most variation in women (15%), although, again, it had a negligible effect in men (1%).
The total proportion of variation in OHRQoL was generally high, ranging from 17 to 29% in the six models constructed. However, there is inevitably much variation that cannot be accounted for by the variables included in this investigation. It is possible that the unexamined factors that may account for the unexplained variation within these analyses may also vary between the genders. Longitudinal studies of this nature allow for comparisons of the characteristics of the initial and final samples, and the identification and management of any major biases. The study members participating in this investigation did not differ significantly from the remainder of the original cohort with respect to any factor in early life other than gender, by which separate analyses were undertaken. In addition, inclusion of cohort members who had moved out of the study region increased the representativeness of the population studied. We are therefore confident that the participants examined were representative of the whole cohort, although the possibility of selection bias cannot be completely ruled out. Women generally reported poorer OHRQoL than men for each OHIP measure, consistent with previous findings on a national sample of a similar age group (Kelly et al., 2000). However, the lifecourse influences on OHRQoL also differed by gender, and varied according to the frequency of impact. In women, only factors acting during adulthood, particularly the number of retained teeth, had a significant impact on total OHIP score and the number of OHIP impacts occurring often. In men, those of a more advantaged social class at birth and with fewer lost teeth in adulthood tended to have the lowest total OHIP scores, reflecting a lower negative impact of oral health on daily activities. More advantaged social class at birth and during childhood and better housing conditions at birth were also related to fewer OHIP impacts occurring often. Tooth retention in adulthood was associated with fewer occasional impacts. The greatest proportion of variation in total OHIP score was explained by early-life factors in men, but by tooth retention in women. Early life accounted for the most variation in the number of frequently occurring OHIP impacts for both genders, but when impacts occurring occasionally or more were considered, factors acting during adulthood explained the most variation in men, and the number of teeth accounted for the most variation in women. The direct impact of tooth retention on each OHIP measurement differed between men and women. Womens OHRQoL was more greatly affected than that of men by problems that were only occasional. In contrast, early-life factors had the most prominent impact in men. Although tooth retention is a significant predictor of OHIP scores in men, they appear to be more influenced by their background in terms of the variation in OHIP score. This may be as much a reflection of the kind of care they sought to address dental problems, as of underlying oral health priorities. Women appear to be more influenced directly by the number of teeth they have. Inglehart et al.s review of the limited literature (2002) identified several ways in which gender differences may be related to health and OHRQoL. McGrath and Bedi (1999b) specifically identified differences between men and women in the way that quality of life is affected by oral health in older British adults, and proposed that OHRQoL is not gender-free. This study suggests that models of the lifecourse influences on OHRQoL in late adulthood may be substantially different between men and women. It would be easy to interpret this in terms of stereotypes, but different lifecourse influences in OHRQoL between men and women may be of importance. Promotion of a healthier adult lifestyle and continued improvements in dental prevention to increase tooth retention would appear to be the public health interventions most likely to improve self-perceived oral health in women. However, such measures may have a lesser impact on men, who appear to be less directly affected by tooth retention. For both genders, social background may be an important correlate with the impact of oral health on daily living in later life, particularly when frequently occurring impacts are considered. An investigation of the impact of each lifecourse stage, on each of the seven specific OHRQoL domains defined by the OHIP, may help us to identify the mechanisms leading to the apparent gender differences.
This work formed part of the BMedSci degree completed by JM and was funded through a bursary from The Health Foundation. We thank all the Thousand Family Study members for taking part in this study, and the study teams past and present. We thank the Wellcome Trust, the Minnie Henderson Trust, the Sir John Knott Trust, and the Special Trustees of the Newcastle Hospitals for funding. Jan Gebbie and Jean Gerrard carried out the oral health examinations. EPIC food frequency questionnaires were analyzed by the MRC Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge. Received for publication March 8, 2006. Revision received October 12, 2005. Accepted for publication October 27, 2005.
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 85, No. 3,
257-261 (2006) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||



