4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Dental visits among older US adults, 1999 - The roles of dentition status and cost

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
卷 135, 期 8, 页码 1154-1162

出版社

AMER DENTAL ASSN
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0375

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The proportion of older adults in the United States will continue to grow during the next few decades. Aging populations will bring unique challenges to dentistry. Understanding visit patterns will help the profession become prepared. Methods. The authors used data from the 1999 National Health Interview Survey to describe visit patterns among adults aged 55 years or older. Outcome variables included presence of a dental visit in the previous year, reasons for the last dental visit and reasons for not having a dental visit. Descriptor variables included age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, region, private dental insurance status and dentition status. Results. Approximately 71 percent of dentate and 20 percent of endantulous adults had had a dental visit in the previous year. Among dentate adults, age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty status, region and dental insurance were associated with visits. Among edentulous adults, age, poverty status and dental insurance were associated with visits for problems. The majority of adults who had not had a dental visit did not recognize a need for one; however, dentate adults were more likely to recognize a need than edentulous adults. For those who recognized a need but did not visit a dentist, cost was a prevalent barrier. Conclusions. Among those who visited a dentist, most went for a diagnostic/preventative procedure. Among those who did not visit a dentist, most did not recognize a need to do so. Cost remains a serious barrier. Clinical implications. Some older adults recognize a need to visit a dentist whereas others (particular the edentulous) do not. As more adults recognize their oral health care needs, cost may prevent some from seeking care.

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