Araştırma Makalesi
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

A NEW CONCEPTUAL ORAL HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUMENT IN TURKISH: T-CMOHK

Yıl 2021, Cilt 6, Sayı 3, 216 - 226, 31.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.952381

Öz

Evaluating the oral health literacy (OHL) of individuals with appropriate instruments is necessary for public dental health prevention programs. To our knowledge, there has been no comprehensive OHL instrument in Turkish up to date. This study aimed at the adaptation of the Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge (CMOHK) to Turkish and evaluating the OHL of participants. The first stage of this methodological study was the cultural adaptation process with forward and back translations, cognitive interviewing, and pilot test followed by psychometric evaluation. A three-part questionnaire containing sociodemographic questions, oral health behaviors, and Turkish CMOHK (T-CMOHK) was administered among 314 volunteered students in a vocational school in Ankara, in 2019. Validity was evaluated with linguistic, content, and construct validity. Internal consistency coefficients were analyzed. p≤0.05 was considered significant. Back-translation comparisons and content validity index (1.00) were good, cognitive pre-test showed the final translation was suitable and understandable. The mean age of 307 participants included was 20.51±1.49 with a majority of women (62.9%). Cronbach’s alpha (0.70), Kuder-Richardson-20 (0.71) and split-half (0.71) coefficients were satisfactory. Of the group, 38.8% had poor; 33.9% had fair and 27.3% had good OHL (mean score=14.21±3.49). Scores were significantly higher among the participants who visited the dentist in case of a dental problem than those who did not (p=0.022) and who recently visited a dentist than those who never had (p=0.007). T-CMOHK met the reliability and validity criteria for further research of the OHL of adults.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Peterson PE. Global policy for improvement of oral health in the 21st century-implications to oral health research of World Health Assembly 2007, World Health Organization. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2008;37:1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2008.00448.
  • 2. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The invisible barrier: literacy and its relationship with oral health. A report of a workgroup sponsored by NIDCR, USPHS, DHHS. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. J Public Health Dent. 2005;65(3):174-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2005.tb02808.
  • 3. Macek MD, Haynes D, Wells W, Bauer-Leffler S, Cotten PA, Parker RM. Measuring conceptual health knowledge in the context of oral health literacy: preliminary results. J Public Health Dent. 2010;70(3):197-204. Available from: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00165.x.
  • 4. Baskaradoss JK. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health status. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:172. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0640-1.
  • 5. Jagan P, Fareed N, Battur H, Khanagar S, Manohar B. Conceptual knowledge of oral health among school teachers in South India. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(1):43-8. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd9317.
  • 6. Patino D, McQuistan MR, Qian F, Hernandez M, Weber-Gasparoni K, Macek MD. Oral health knowledge levels of Hispanics in Iowa. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;149(12):1038-48. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.07.023.
  • 7. Sabbahi DA, Lawrence HP, Limeback H, Rootman I. Development and evaluation of an oral health literacy instrument for adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009;37(5):451-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00490.
  • 8. Sistani MMN, Montazeri A, Yazdani R, Murtomaa H. New oral health literacy instrument for public health: development and pilot testing. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013;4:1-9. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12042.
  • 9. Ueno M, Takeuchi S, Oshiro A, Kawaguchi Y. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health behaviors and clinical status in Japanese adults. J Dent Sci. 2013;8:170-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.09.012.
  • 10. McQuistan MR, Qasim A, Shao C, Straub-Morarend CL, Macek MD. Oral health knowledge among elderly patients. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2014.10.002.
  • 11. Holtzman JS, Atchison KA, Macek MD, Markovic D. Oral health literacy and measures of periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2017;88(1):78-88. doi:10.1902/jop.2016.160203.
  • 12. Peker K, Kose TE, Guray B, Uysal O, 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. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2016.1278079.
  • 13. Macek MD, Atchison KA, Watson MR, Holtzman J, Wells W, Braun B, et al. Assessing health literacy and oral health: preliminary results of a multi-site investigation. J Public Health Dent. 2016;76(4):303-13. doi:10.1111/jphd.12156.
  • 14. International Test Commission (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2nd ed.) www.InTestCom.org. Available from: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guidelinetestadaptation2ed.pdf
  • 15. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 September 5]. Available from: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
  • 16. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
  • 17. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Pychol 2013;92(2):79-94. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079.
  • 18. Pearson RH, Mundfrom DJ. Recommended sample size for conducting exploratory factor analysis on dichotomous data. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2010;9(2):359-68. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1288584240.
  • 19. Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s Alpha. Leis Sci. 2017;39(2):163-73. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189.
  • 20. Matlock-Hetzel S. Basic concepts in item and test analysis. paper presented at the annual meeting of the southwest educational research association, Austin; 1997.
  • 21. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:272-99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
  • 22. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. electron j bus res methods. 2008;6(1):53-60. doi: 10.21427/ D7CF7R.

Kapsamlı ağız ve diş sağlığı okuryazarlığı ölçümüne yönelik yeni bir araç: T-CMOHK

Yıl 2021, Cilt 6, Sayı 3, 216 - 226, 31.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.952381

Öz

Bireylerin ağız ve diş sağlığı okuryazarlığının (ADSOY) uygun araçlarla değerlendirilmesi gereklidir. Henüz Türkçe geliştirilmiş kapsamlı bir ADSOY ölçüm aracı bulunmamaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı “Kapsamlı Ağız ve Diş Sağlığı Bilgisi Ölçüm Aracı (CMOHK)'nın Türkçeye uyarlanması ve geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğinin araştırılması, katılımcıların ADSOY düzeyinin değerlendirilmesidir. Metodolojik tipteki bu araştırmanın ilk aşamasını ileri ve geri çeviriler, bilişsel değerlendirme ve pilot denemeyi içeren kültürel adaptasyon süreci oluşturdu, sonrasında psikometrik analizler uygulandı. Sosyodemografik özellikler, ağız ve diş sağlığı ile ilgili özellikler ve T-CMOHK, olmak üzere üç bölüm içeren bir veri toplama formu, Ankara’da bulunan bir sosyal bilimler meslek yüksekokulunda kayıtlı öğrenciler içerisinde araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden 314 öğrenciye 2019 yılı Mayıs ayı içerisinde uygulandı. Geçerlilik analizleri kapsamında dil geçerliliği, kapsam geçerliliği ve yapısal geçerlilik analizleri yapıldı. Güvenilirlik analizleri için iç tutarlılık katsayıları değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel anlamlılık değeri olarak p≤0,05 kriter alındı. Geri çeviri ve kapsam geçerliliği değerleri iyi olarak bulundu. Bilişsel geçerlilik sonuçları ölçüm aracının anlaşılabilir olduğunu gösterdi. Tam olarak doldurulmuş 307 form araştırmaya dahil edildi. Cronbach's alpha (0,70), KR-20 (0,71) ve iki-yarı iç tutarlılık (0.71) katsayıları yeterli olarak bulundu. Katılımcıların ADSOY düzeyleri %38,8’nin zayıf, %33,9’nun orta ve %27,3’nün iyi olarak bulundu (ortalama puan=14,21±3,49). ADSOY puanları şikayeti olduğunda hemen diş hekimine başvuranlarda başvurmayanlara göre (p=0,022), ve daha önce diş hekimine gitmiş olanlarda hiç gitmemiş olanlara göre (p=0,007) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha yüksek idi. T-CMOHK, yetişkinlerde ADSOY araştırmalarında kullanılmak üzere geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik kriterlerini karşılayan bir ölçüm aracıdır.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Peterson PE. Global policy for improvement of oral health in the 21st century-implications to oral health research of World Health Assembly 2007, World Health Organization. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2008;37:1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2008.00448.
  • 2. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The invisible barrier: literacy and its relationship with oral health. A report of a workgroup sponsored by NIDCR, USPHS, DHHS. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. J Public Health Dent. 2005;65(3):174-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2005.tb02808.
  • 3. Macek MD, Haynes D, Wells W, Bauer-Leffler S, Cotten PA, Parker RM. Measuring conceptual health knowledge in the context of oral health literacy: preliminary results. J Public Health Dent. 2010;70(3):197-204. Available from: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00165.x.
  • 4. Baskaradoss JK. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health status. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:172. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0640-1.
  • 5. Jagan P, Fareed N, Battur H, Khanagar S, Manohar B. Conceptual knowledge of oral health among school teachers in South India. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(1):43-8. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd9317.
  • 6. Patino D, McQuistan MR, Qian F, Hernandez M, Weber-Gasparoni K, Macek MD. Oral health knowledge levels of Hispanics in Iowa. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;149(12):1038-48. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2018.07.023.
  • 7. Sabbahi DA, Lawrence HP, Limeback H, Rootman I. Development and evaluation of an oral health literacy instrument for adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009;37(5):451-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00490.
  • 8. Sistani MMN, Montazeri A, Yazdani R, Murtomaa H. New oral health literacy instrument for public health: development and pilot testing. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013;4:1-9. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12042.
  • 9. Ueno M, Takeuchi S, Oshiro A, Kawaguchi Y. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health behaviors and clinical status in Japanese adults. J Dent Sci. 2013;8:170-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.09.012.
  • 10. McQuistan MR, Qasim A, Shao C, Straub-Morarend CL, Macek MD. Oral health knowledge among elderly patients. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2014.10.002.
  • 11. Holtzman JS, Atchison KA, Macek MD, Markovic D. Oral health literacy and measures of periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2017;88(1):78-88. doi:10.1902/jop.2016.160203.
  • 12. Peker K, Kose TE, Guray B, Uysal O, 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. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2016.1278079.
  • 13. Macek MD, Atchison KA, Watson MR, Holtzman J, Wells W, Braun B, et al. Assessing health literacy and oral health: preliminary results of a multi-site investigation. J Public Health Dent. 2016;76(4):303-13. doi:10.1111/jphd.12156.
  • 14. International Test Commission (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (2nd ed.) www.InTestCom.org. Available from: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guidelinetestadaptation2ed.pdf
  • 15. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 September 5]. Available from: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
  • 16. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
  • 17. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Pychol 2013;92(2):79-94. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079.
  • 18. Pearson RH, Mundfrom DJ. Recommended sample size for conducting exploratory factor analysis on dichotomous data. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2010;9(2):359-68. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1288584240.
  • 19. Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s Alpha. Leis Sci. 2017;39(2):163-73. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189.
  • 20. Matlock-Hetzel S. Basic concepts in item and test analysis. paper presented at the annual meeting of the southwest educational research association, Austin; 1997.
  • 21. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:272-99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
  • 22. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. electron j bus res methods. 2008;6(1):53-60. doi: 10.21427/ D7CF7R.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Halk ve Çevre Sağlığı
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Özlem EKMEKCİ GÜNER (Sorumlu Yazar)
HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU
0000-0002-5901-8374
Türkiye


Nesrin ÇİLİNGİROĞLU
HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HALK SAĞLIĞI ENSTİTÜSÜ, HALK SAĞLIĞI ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0003-4574-6829
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ekim 2021
Başvuru Tarihi 15 Haziran 2021
Kabul Tarihi 30 Temmuz 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021, Cilt 6, Sayı 3

Kaynak Göster

Vancouver Ekmekci Güner Ö. , Çilingiroğlu N. A NEW CONCEPTUAL ORAL HEALTH LITERACY INSTRUMENT IN TURKISH: T-CMOHK. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi. 2021; 6(3): 216-226.

Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi

Crossref Content Registration logo

Dergimiz Açık Erişim Politikasını benimsemiş olup dergimize gönderilen yayınlar için gerek değerlendirme gerekse yayınlama dahil yazarlardan hiçbir ücret talep edilmemektedir. 

by-nc.eu.png

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.