Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct;50(5):333-338.
doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12689. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

Adult oral health-related quality of life instruments: A systematic review

Fedrico Riva  1 , Mariana Seoane  1 , Michael Eduardo Reichenheim  2 , Georgios Tsakos  3 , Roger Keller Celeste  4
Affiliations

Adult oral health-related quality of life instruments: A systematic review

Fedrico Riva et al. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the existing OHRQoL instruments for adults, describe their scope (generic or specific), theoretical background, validation type and cross-cultural adaptation.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted, and articles presenting validation of OHRQoL instruments in adults were included. Data were collected about the validation type: external validation (correlations/associations); or internal validation (factor analysis/principal components analysis, item response theory); and cross-cultural adaptation.

Results: Of 3730 references identified, 326 were included reporting 392 studies. Forty-two original instruments were found among 74 different versions, 40 generic and 34 condition-specific. Locker's theoretical framework was the predominant model. The oral health impact profile (OHIP) presented 20 versions, with OHIP-14 being the most frequent (26.8%), followed by geriatric oral assessment index (GOHAI) (14.0%), OHIP-49 (11.7%) and oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP) (9.7%). Most studies focused on external validation (65.3%), while internal validation was reported in 24.8% (n = 26) of OHIP-14 studies, 50.9% (n = 28) of GOHAI and 21.1% (n = 8) of OIDP studies. Most internal validation studies were conducted in English-speaking countries (n = 33), and cross-cultural adaptation was mostly in non-English-speaking European countries (n = 40).

Conclusions: Many generic and condition-specific instruments were found, but few have gone through a rigorous internal validation process or have undergone cross-cultural adaptation. This, in turn, makes it difficult for researchers to choose an appropriate measure based on known psychometric properties. OHIP-14, OIDP and GOHAI seem to be the most widely validated instruments. Equalizing measurement properties for comparability are challenging due to theoretical heterogeneity. Future studies should assess psychometric properties, explore the factorial structure and work towards a consensus on critical issues.

Keywords: factor analysis; oral health-related quality of life; patient-reported outcome measures; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Locker D. Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. Community Dent Health. 1988;5:3-18.
    1. Cushing AM, Sheiham A, Maizels J. Developing socio-dental indicators-the social impact of dental disease. Community Dent Health. 1986;3:3-17.
    1. Celeste RK, Broadbent JM, Moyses SJ. Half-century of Dental Public Health research: bibliometric analysis of world scientific trends. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44:557-563.
    1. The Whoqol Group. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1569-1585.
    1. Sheiham A, Watt RG. The common risk factor approach: a rational basis for promoting oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28:399-406.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources