3.9 Article

Determinants of oral health-related quality of life of the institutionalized elderly

期刊

PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 247-254

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/psyg.12077

关键词

elderly; GOHAI; long-term care; OHRQL; oral health

资金

  1. Sozialministerium Baden-Wurttemberg (Ministry of Social Affairs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundDiminished oral health of the institutionalized elderly has frequently been reported. This is not only of significance with regard to nutrition and general health, but it can also affect oral health-related quality of life. This paper evaluates the effects of oral and general conditions on oral health-related quality of life for the institutionalized elderly, as measured by the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI). Materials and MethodsNinety-four residents of four long-term care homes in southern Germany agreed to participate in this study, and interviews were conducted using the GOHAI questionnaire. The Revised Oral Health Assessment Guide was applied to allocate participants into two groups: satisfactory oral health and poor oral health. To evaluate the effects of age, gender, number of chronic diseases, frequently taken drugs, care level, Mini-Mental State Examination score, periodontitis (for participants with their own teeth), pressures caused by prostheses, and type of denture worn, a linear regression model with the total GOHAI score was calculated with these determinants. ResultsThe mean SD GOHAI score was 53.3 +/- 6.2 in the satisfactory oral health group and 48.7 +/- 7.3 in the poor oral health group. Statistical analysis showed that the GOHAI scores were significantly different in satisfactory oral health and poor oral health groups (P = 0.030) and were affected by care level (P = 0.008) and type of dentures worn (P = 0.006). ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that oral health-related quality of life of the institutionalized elderly is low and is positively associated with better oral health.

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

3.9
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