4.5 Review

Theoretical basis and explanation for the relationship between area-level social inequalities and population oral health outcomes A scoping review

期刊

SSM-POPULATION HEALTH
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 451-462

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.06.001

关键词

Inequality; Theories; Oral health; Social determinants; Review

资金

  1. International Postgraduate Research Scholarship
  2. Australian Postgraduate Award
  3. Brazilian government agency CAPES [BEX 13774-13-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to review the evidence on the association between area-level social inequalities and population oral health according to type and extent of social theories. A scoping review was conducted of studies, which assessed the association between area-level social inequality measures, and population oral health outcomes including self-rated oral health, number of teeth, dental caries, periodontal disease, tooth loss, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and dental pain. A search strategy was applied to identify evidence on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, references of selected studies, and further grey literature. A qualitative content analysis of the selected studies was conducted to identify theories and categorize studies according to their theoretical basis. A total of 2892 studies were identified with 16 included in the review. Seven types of social theories were used on 48 occasions within the selected studies including: psychosocial (n = 13), behavioural (n=10), neo-material (n=10), social capital (n=6), social cohesion (n=4), material (n=3) and social support (n = 2). Of the selected studies, four explicitly tested social theories as pathways from inequalities to population oral health outcomes, three used a theoretical construct, seven used theories for post-hoc explanation and two did not have any use of theory. In conclusion, psychosocial theories were used most frequently. Although theories were often mentioned, majority of these studies did not test a social theory. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.5
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