Comparison of administration methods on OHIP-14 scores
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59681/2175-4411.v17.2025.1153Keywords:
oral health, quality of life, surveys and questionnairesAbstract
Objective: Compare two administration methods of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14), online and telephone. Methods: 109 young adults initially answered OHIP-14 online. After 15 days, participants answered again on telephone. Scores were compared using Wilcoxon test. Cronbach's alpha estimated the reliability and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient evaluated the reproducibility. A simple linear regression was performed to assess systematic bias. Results: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) and median (interquartile range [IQR]) OHIP-14 scores were_ 9.72 (SD 9.71) and 6 (IQR 3; 14) for online and 8.38 (SD 8.43) and 6 (IQR 2; 11) for telephone. Significant differences were found for overall score (p=0.02) and psychological disability domain (p<0.01), with online higher scores. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92, while ICC was 0.76. Linear regression showed that online tended to yield higher scores (p=0.004). Conclusion: Both methods demonstrated high values of reliability and moderate values of reproducibility; however, online systematically resulted in higher scores.
References
Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: What, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res 2011;90(11):1264–1270; doi: 10.1177/0022034511399918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511399918
Bulgareli JV, Faria ET de, CortellazziI KL, et al. Fatores que influenciam o impacto da saúde bucal nas atividades diárias de adolescentes, adultos e idosos. Rev Saude Publica 2018;52:44; doi: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2018052000042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/S1518-8787.2018052000042
Guerra MJC, Greco RM, Leite ICG, et al. Impact of oral health conditions on the quality of life of workers. Ciencia e Saude Coletiva 2014;19(12):4777–4786; doi: 10.1590/1413-812320141912.21352013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320141912.21352013
World Health Organization. Novel Coronavirus(2019-nCoV) Situation Report – 22- 11 February 2020. World Health Organization 2020;(February):2019.
Tysiąc-Miśta M, Dziedzic A. The attitudes and professional approaches of dental practitioners during the COVID-19 outbreak in poland: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(13):1–17; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134703
Aliaño Piña M, Ruiz Villén C, Galán Serrano J, et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Revista Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (English Edition) 2021;68(8):437–442; doi: 10.1016/j.redare.2021.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redare.2021.09.001
Kwas K, Nowakowska A, Fornalczyk A, et al. Impact of contraception on uterine fibroids. Medicina (Lithuania) 2021;57(7); doi: 10.3390/medicina57070717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57070717
de Sousa PCB, Mendes FM, Pettorossi Imparato JC, et al. Differences in responses to the Oral health impact profile (OHIP14) used as a questionnaire or in an interview. Braz Oral Res 2009;23(4):358–364; doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242009000400002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242009000400002
Reissmann DR, John MT, Schierz O. Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. Eur J Oral Sci 2011;119(1):73–78; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00805.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00805.x
Desai R, Durham J, Wassell RW, et al. Does the mode of administration of the Oral Health Impact Profile-49 affect the outcome score? J Dent 2014;42(1):84–89; doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.10.016
Ortiz FR, dos Santos MD, Landenberger T, et al. Comparison of face-to-face interview and telephone methods of administration on the ECOHIS scores. Braz Dent J 2016;27(5):613–618; doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201601134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201601134
Bekes K, Solanke C, Waldhart T, Priller J, Stamm T. Effect of method of administration on the oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS-G). Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(8):5061-5066. doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03818-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03818-7
Racki DNDO, Nora ÂD, Comim LD, et al. Erosive tooth wear among South Brazilian adolescents, and its association with sociodemographic variables. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:1–11; doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0119
Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25(4):284–290; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528-1997.tb00941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
De Oliveira BH, Nadanovsky P. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile - Short form. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33(4):307–314; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00225.x
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16(3):297–334; doi: 10.1007/BF02310555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Schuck P. Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research 2004;13(3):571–585; doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021318.92272.2a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021318.92272.2a
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8(2):135–160; doi: 10.1177/096228029900800204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/096228099673819272
Lyons RA, Wareham K, Lucas M, et al. SF-36 scores vary by method of administration: implications for study design. J Public Health (Bangkok) 1999;21(1):41–45; doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/21.1.41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/21.1.41
Souza AC de, Alexandre NMC, Guirardello E de B. Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2017;26(3):649–659; doi: 10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022
Bogner, K., & Landrock, U. GESIS Survey Guidelines Response Biases in Standardised Surveys. 2016. 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_016.
Paulhus, D. L. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69). 2002; Mahwah NY: Erlbaum.
Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin Q 2008;72(5):847–865; doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn063
Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, et al. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc Sci Res 2009;38(1):1–18; doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Bianca Schlesener Dettmer, Ricardo Kenji Takahama, Letícia Donato Comim, Julio Eduardo do Amaral Zenkner, Luana Severo Alves
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Submission of a paper to Journal of Health Informatics is understood to imply that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and that the author(s) permission to publish his/her (their) article(s) in this Journal implies the exclusive authorization of the publishers to deal with all issues concerning the copyright therein. Upon the submission of an article, authors will be asked to sign a Copyright Notice. Acceptance of the agreement will ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript and acceptance of the agreement.
