Developing abbreviated OHIP versions for use with TMD patients

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of three versions of the Dutch Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL), for clinical use with temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients. To that end, two abbreviated OHIP versions (OHIP-NL14 and OHIP-NL5) were developed by respectively selecting 14 and five items from the officially translated and culturally adapted original 49-item OHIP-NL questionnaire. A total of 245 consecutive patients, referred by their dentist to the TMD clinic of the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (77% women; mean age ± s.d. = 41·0 ± 14·9 years), completed the Research Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (RDC/TMD) axis II questionnaire and the OHIP-NL. Reliability and validity of all three OHIP versions were compared, and their associations with four psychological axis II variables, indicating the level of impairment of patients with TMD, were examined. According to guidelines for clinical application, internal consistency scores were sufficient for OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14, but insufficient for OHIP-NL5. Test-retest reliability (n = 64) was excellent for OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14 and fair to good for OHIP-NL5. For all three versions, there was evidence for score validity: associations between OHIP summary scores on the one hand and validation variables and other RDC/TMD axis II variables on the other hand met the expectations and were statistically significant (P < 0·001). In conclusion, the OHIP-NL and OHIP-NL14 both performed comparatively well and better than the OHIP-NL5. When the length of the questionnaire (i.e. the time needed for its completion) is an issue, the OHIP-14 would therefore be the preferred version.

What is the impact of acute and chronic orofacial pain on quality of life?

“…The results of this study are in line with previous results using the OHIP-49 with TMD patients 6,12 , but it is more difficult to compare directly to previous studies examining ADP with the OHIP because of the variety of methods used 13,14,28,29 . Even though, the actual OHIP-14 was not used, instead the appropriate 14 items were extracted out of the OHIP-49 questionnaire; our results are comparable to other studies that have used the OHIP-14 with TMD and ADP patients [28][29][30] . It would, however, appear that given the near perfect correlations between the OHIP-49, the OHIP-14, and the OHIP-5 that short versions of the OHIP measure pain's impact on OHRQoL very well.…”

WHO-5 well-being index as screening instrument for psychological comorbidity in patients with temporomandibular disorder

“…This is in line with the findings of the current study, as high internal consistency was found for the respective 15 items. An OHIP-5 questionnaire with only 5 items was introduced by van der Meulen [24]. The OHIP-5 is as concise as the WHO-5 and can therefore be answered in a short time.…”

“…Correlations >0.50 are indicative of concurrent validity. In addition, the OHIP-14 and the OHIP-5 were extracted from the OHIP-49 questionnaire, as these instruments use only some of the items of the OHIP-49 [23,24]. For both instruments, Cronbach's α was calculated.…”

Psychometric Properties of the Oral Health Impact Profile and New Methodological Approach

“…Thus, some reduced versions, such as the OHIP-14 (Slade, 1997), were developed to address the same concepts as the full version of OHIP but to consume less time. These versions have been adapted and validated for specific clinical conditions, such as temporomandibular disorders (Van der Meulen et al, 2012), prostheses users (Özhayat and Gotfredsen, 2013), and edentulous patients (de Souza et al, 2012), among others.…”