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

Abstract

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, 39 generic and 35 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 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, neither have undergone cross-cultural adaptation, making it difficult for researchers to choose based on psychometric properties. OHIP-14, OIDP and GOHAI seem to be the most widely validated instruments. Equalising measurement properties for comparability is challenging due to theoretical heterogeneity. Future studies should assess psychometric properties, explore the factorial structure, and work towards a consensus on critical issues.

Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients after Stroke—A Systematic Review

“…The heterogeneity across studies, regarding country, age, gender distribution, and time since stroke, limits the comparability of included studies. Similarly, the different assessment measurements of OHRQoL need to be recognized; although both OHIP and GOHAI are validated and appropriate for measuring OHRQoL, several differences exist between those measurements [ 44 ]. Furthermore, sub-scales of OHRQoL were rarely reported across included studies (see Table 5 ), making conclusions on the main reason for OHRQoL impairment (whether it is more functional or more psychosocial) speculative.…”

Reliability and validity of the 15‐item Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire in China: A short‐form instrument to measure quality of life

“…A higher total score indicated higher OHRQoL. This is the most common OHRQoL tool that is cross‐cultured and adhibited into diverse regions and age groups, 19 with good psychometric outcomes. The mandarin version of OHIP‐14 was proven to be reliable and valid in China 20…”

The MOHIP-14PW (Modified Oral Health Impact Profile 14-Item Version for Pregnant Women): A Real-World Study of Its Psychometric Properties and Relationship with Patient-Reported Oral Health

“…According to Google Scholar, the original development article of the 49-item OHIP [ 10 ] and its shorter version, OHIP-14 [ 11 ], have been cited 2,873 and 2,590 times as of December 10, 2021, both with an average of approximately 100 citations per year. A newly published systematic review of adult OHQoL instruments found that the OHIP-14 was the most frequently used (26.8%), while the OHIP-49 ranked third [ 12 ]. In addition, the literature suggests that the “OHIP-14 appeared to be responsive to change” [ 13 ].…”