4.6 Article

The relationship between social network, social support and periodontal disease among older Americans

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 547-552

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01713.x

关键词

older adults; periodontal disease; social network; social support

资金

  1. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research/NIH [1 R21 DE019535-01]
  2. British Heart Foundation [RG/07/008/23674] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G19/35, G8802774, G0902037, G0100222] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0902037] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Aim The objectives of this study were to examine the relationship between social network, social support and periodontal disease among older American adults and to test whether social network and support mediates socioeconomic inequality in periodontal disease. Materials and Methods Data pertaining to participants aged 60 years and over from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004 were used. Periodontal disease variables were extent loss of periodontal attachment >= 3 mm and moderate periodontitis. Social support and networks were indicated by the need for emotional support, number of close friends and marital status. Results Widowed and those with lowest number of friends had higher rates of the extent of loss of periodontal attachment (1.27, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.58) and (1.22, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.45), respectively. Marital status and number of friends were not significantly associated with moderate periodontitis after adjusting for behavioural factors. The need for more emotional support was not related to periodontal disease in this analysis. Social networks and support had no impact on socioeconomic inequality in periodontal disease. Conclusion Certain aspects of social network, namely being widowed and having fewer friends, were linked to the extent of loss of periodontal attachment but not to the definition of moderate periodontitis, in older adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据