RELIABILITY OF TURKISH VERSIONS OF TWO DIFFERENT ORAL HEALTH INDEXES FOR EDENTULOUS GERIATRIC PATIENTS: A PILOT STUDY

Year 2020, Volume: 30 Issue: 3, 443 - 450, 15.07.2020

Sezgi Cinel Şahin

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.743930

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the Turkish version of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI-TR) and Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous (OHIP-EDENT-TR) in edentulous geriatric patients using a total prosthesis.
Material and Methods: Twelve items in GOHAI and 19 items in OHIP-EDENT were translated into Turkish using the back-translation technique. A total of 32 complete edentulous geriatric participants answered the GOHAI-TR and OHIP-EDENT-TR indexes twice at two different times (first day and second week). The data obtained from both applications were used for reliability and test-retest analysis. Reliability was analyzed with Cronbach's alpha () and test–retest analyses were conducted using statistical software.
Results: The mean item score of GOHAI-TR was found to be higher, especially in terms of physical function negatively affecting the quality of life. Cronbach's  value of GOHAI-TR was found to be 0.897 and it any of the index items did not need to be removed. Similarly, the OHIP-EDENT-TR index showed that the most serious problems among participants were related to psychological discomfort, psychological and social disability, and also handicap. Cronbach's  value of OHIP-EDENT-TR was found to be 0.947 and it was determined that no item was required to be removed from the questionnaire.
Conclusion: The GOHAI-TR and OHIP-EDENT-TR indexes can be considered scales with excellent reliability and homogeneity for edentulous patients. Further studies are needed to elucidate different factors such as bone resorption degrees and period of edentulousness that may affect oral health and satisfaction in edentulous geriatric individuals.
Key words: Geriatric Dentistry, Geriatric Assessment, Edentulism, Complete Denture

Dişsiz Geriatrik Hastalarda İki Farklı Ağız Sağlığı İndeksinin Türkçe Versiyonlarının Güvenilirliği: Pilot Çalışma

ÖZ

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, total protez kullanan dişsiz geriatrik hastalarda, Geriatrik Ağız Sağlığı Değerlendirme İndeksi (GOHAI-TR) ve dişsiz hastalar için Ağız Sağlığı Etki Profili (OHIP-EDENT-TR) indekslerinin Türkçe versiyonlarını değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: 12 maddelik GOHAI ve 19 maddelik OHIP-EDENT indeksleri geri-çeviri tekniği kullanılarak Türkçe ‘ye çevrildi. Toplam 32 tam dişsiz geriatrik katılımcı GOHAI-TR ve OHIP-EDENT-TR anketlerini iki farklı zamanda (birinci gün ve ikinci hafta) iki kez yanıtladı. Her iki uygulamadan elde edilen veriler güvenilirlik ve test-tekrar test analizi için kullanıldı. Güvenilirlik Cronbach alfa () verileri ile analiz edilirken, test-tekrar test analizleri de istatistiksel yazılım kullanılarak yapıldı.
Bulgular: GOHAI-TR indeksi ortalama madde puanları, özellikle fiziksel işlev açısından yaşam kalitesini olumsuz yönde etkileyen sorularda daha yüksek bulundu. GOHAI-TR için Cronbach 's () değeri 0.897 olarak bulundu ve indeks maddelerinden herhangi birinin çıkarılmasına gerek olmadığı tespit edildi. Benzer şekilde, OHIP-EDENT-TR indeks katılımcılarının en ciddi sorunlarının psikolojik rahatsızlık, psikolojik ve sosyal yetersizlik ve handikap ile ilgili olduğu tespit edildi. OHIP-EDENT-TR için Cronbach 's () değeri 0,947 olarak bulundu ve anketten hiçbir maddenin çıkartılmasının gerekmediği tespit edildi.
Sonuç: Dişsiz bireyler için, GOHAI-TR ve OHIP-EDENT-TR indeksleri mükemmel güvenilirlik ve homojenlik sergileyen ölçekler olarak kabul edilebilir. Dişsiz ve yaşlı bireylerde ağız sağlığı ve memnuniyetini etkileyebilecek alveolar kemik rezorpsiyon dereceleri ve dişsizlik süresi gibi farklı faktörleri de dikkate alan daha fazla çalışmaya ihtiyaç vardır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Geriatrik Diş Hekimliği; Geriatrik Değerlendirme, Dişsizlik; Tam Protez

Keywords

Geriatric Dentistry, Geriatric Assessment, Edentulism,

References

• 1. Liu N, Zeng L, Li Z, Wang J. Health-related quality of life and long-term care needs among elderly individuals living alone: a cross-sectional study in rural areas of Shaanxi Province, China. BMC Public Health 2013;8(13):313-9.
• 2. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Nüfus Projeksiyonları, 2013-2075. Sayı:15844. [Internet] Available from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=15844&v=1362363 401000?v= 1362363401000. Accessed:10.12.2019.
• 3. Büyükkaplan Ş, Güldağ MÜ, Tuna SH, Turna Ç. Tam Dişsiz kadın ve erkek bireylerde alt çene alveolar residüel kret rezorpsiyonlarının karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniv Dis Hek Fak Derg 2012;1:46-21.
• 4. Ergül S, Akar GC. Reliability and validity of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index in Turkey. J Gerontol Nurs 2008;34(9):33-9.
• 5. Shekhawat K, Chauhan A, Koshy A, Rekha P, Kumar H. Reliability of Malayalam version of Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index among institutionalized elderly in Alleppey, Kerala (India): A pilot study. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(2):153-7.
• 6. Souza RF, Patrocínio L, Pero AC, Marra J, Compagnoni MA. Reliability and validation of a Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for assessing edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34(11):821-6.
• 7. Slade GD, Strauss RP, Atchison KA, Kressin NR, Locker D, Reisine ST. Conference summary: assessing oral health outcomes-measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health 1998;15(1):3-7.
• 8. Murariu A, Hanganu C, Bobu L. Evaluation of the Reliability of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) in Institutionalized Elderly in Romania: A Pilot Study. OHDMBSC 2010; 9(1):11-5. [Internet] Available From: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Evaluation-of-the-Reliability-of-the-Geriatric-Oral-Murariu-Hanganu/b3de97bae05b34f7cd0c7e11752ee26ee04f5832. Accessed: 05.05.2020.
• 9. Allen F, Locker D. A modified short version of the oral health impact profile for assessing health-related quality of life in edentulous adults. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(5):446-50.
• 10. Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health 1994;11(1):3-11.
• 11. Atchison KA, Dolan TA. Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J Dent Educ 1990;54(11):680-7.
• 12. Parthasarathy DS, McGrath CPJ, Bridges SM, Wong HM, Yiu CKY, Au TKF. Efficacy of instruments measuring oral health literacy: a systematic review. Oral Health Prev Dent 2014;12(3):201-7.
• 13. He SL, Wang JH. Reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for edentulous subjects. Qual Life Res 2015;24(4):1011-6.
• 14. Horowitz AM, Kleinman D V. Oral Health Literacy: The New Imperative to Better Oral Health. Dent Clin North Am 2008;52(2):333-44.
• 15. Gokturk O, Yarkac FU. Assessment of oral health-related quality of life among elderly patients with periodontal disease. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics 2018;21(3):313-22.
• 16. Peker K, Köse TE, Güray B, Uysal Ö, Erdem TL. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry (TREALD-30). Acta Odontol Scand 2017;75(3):198-207.
• 17. Balci N, Alkan N, Gurgan CA. Psychometric properties of a Turkish version of the oral health impact profile-14. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(1):19-24.
• 18. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res 1998;7(4):323-35.
• 19. Sullivan M. Cross-cultural validation for quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47(12):1465-6.
• 20. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46(12):1417–32.
• 21. Leles CR, Compagnoni MA, de Souza RF, Barbosa DB. Kinesiographic study of mandibular movements during functional adaptation to complete dentures. J Appl Oral 2003;11(4):311-8.
• 22. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60(1):34-42.
• 23. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sbille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;9(12):176-85.