3.8 Article

Health-related quality of life of children aged 11 to 14 years with orofacial conditions

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 260-266

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1597/03-077.1

关键词

children; orofacial conditions; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 11- to 14-year-old children with orofacial conditions. Design: Thirty-nine patients with orofacial conditions were compared with 32 patients with dental caries. Outcome Measure: The multidimensional 37-item Child Perceptions Questionnaire for 11- to 14-year-old children (CPQ(11-14)). This forms one component of the Child Oral Health Quality of Life Questionnaire. Results: The orofacial group had slightly higher scores on the CPQ(11-14) than the dental group (p <.05). The scores were slightly to moderately higher on the functional limitations (p <.01) and social well-being (p <.01) domains. The groups did not differ with respect to oral symptoms or emotional wellbeing. Mouth breathing, problems with speech, missing school, being teased, and being asked questions about their condition were the only issues reported more frequently by the orofacial group (p <.01). There was no evidence of social inhibition or withdrawal in the orofacial group. The children with orofacial conditions rated their oral health better than the children with dental decay (p <.05). In both groups, the majority of children reported that their condition had little impact on their life overall. Conclusions: Based on CPO11-14 scores, there were few differences in the HRQoL of 11- to 14-year-old children with orofacial conditions, compared with children with dental caries. This suggests that the majority of these children are well adjusted and able to cope with the adversities they experience as a result of their conditions. This may reflect the quality of the team approach used at the treatment setting at which they were recruited.

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

3.8
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