4.4 Article

Validation for Brazilian Portuguese language of the Hong Kong Oral Health Literacy Assessment Task for Paediatric Dentistry (BOHLAT-P)

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12585

关键词

dental caries; health literacy; oral health; surveys and questionnaires; validation studies

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  4. Ministry of Education
  5. FAPEMIG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Oral health literacy (OHL) is associated with oral health outcomes. Aim To validate the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Hong Kong OHL Assessment Task for Paediatric Dentistry (HKOHLAT-P). Design We performed cross-cultural adaptation of the HKOHLAT-P. A sample of 200 pre-schoolers and caregivers from Campina Grande, Brazil completed the Brazilian HKOHLAT-P (BOHLAT-P), sociodemographic questionnaire, the Brazilian Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (B-ECOHIS), and the Brazilian Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry (BREALD-30). Child dental caries was assessed. Instrument reliability was measured by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest (ICC). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated dimensionality. Regression models tested associations between BOHLAT-P and exploratory variables (P < .05). Results BOHLAT-P demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92; ICC = 0.95). BOHLAT-P and BREALD-30 scores (r = .71), number of schooling years (r = .60), and reading hours (r = .34) were positively correlated. BOHLAT-P and B-ECOHIS scores (r = -.22), and BOHLAT-P scores and number of cavitated teeth (r = -.15) were negatively correlated. After controlling for confounding variables, BOHLAT-P scores were not associated with caries or number of teeth with cavitated caries. Conclusion BOHLAT-P is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the OHL of Brazilian parents.

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

4.4
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