Gingivitis and plaque scores among residents of low‐income senior housing

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this paper is to present Gingival Index (GI) and Plaque Scores (PS) of older and disabled adults living in low‐income senior housing and their association with sociodemographic, health status and oral health behaviours. Methods Participants were recruited from six low‐income senior housing residences in Connecticut. Primary outcome measures were Gingival Index (GI) and Plaque Scores (PS). Surveys assessed sociodemographic characteristic, beliefs and behaviours. Logistic regression analysis was used to model the binary outcomes of probability of unfavourable GI status (>=0.34) and unfavourable PS (>=74%) against variables including demographic characteristics, oral hygiene behaviours and health status. Results 331 participants volunteered for the study. Mean baseline GI was 0.38 (SD: 0.3), and mean PS was 71.7% (SD: 18%). Logistic regression showed that males were more likely to have higher GI and plaque scores than females. Those with less formal education were more likely to have worse GI scores and high PS compared to those with college educations. Those with lower incomes and those who rated their oral health poor/fair were more likely to have higher PS. Conclusion Participants had remarkably good gingival health regardless of relatively high PS. Males and less educated individuals should receive special attention when implementing oral hygiene interventions because of their relatively poor oral hygiene status.

Evaluating Cognitive/Emotional and Behavioral Mediators of Oral Health Outcomes in Vulnerable Older Adults

“…Mediators found significant in the individual logistic regression analyses for GI and PS were utilized in the multiple logistic regression analyses for each clinical outcome. Multiple regression analyses were conducted for both GI and PS with these specific cognitive and behavioral variables, controlling for selected moderators found to be significant predictors of GI and PS outcomes (Reisine et al, 2020). Controlling for education, income, and perceived oral health status, higher locus of control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.408; confidence interval [CI] = [0.992, 1.998], p = .055) and more brushing (OR = 1.840, CI = [1.039, 3.258], p = .036) predicted lower GI score.…”

“…Data were collecting digitally, using QDS software and an Access database developed for the study. The principal investigators (PIs) identified clinically relevant cutoff points for each of the theoretical domains measured, based on the IM model, below which participants were determined to need individually tailored AMI intervention (Reisine et al, 2020; Schensul, Reisine, et al, 2019).…”

Building a new scale to measure worries about oral hygiene self‐management in vulnerable older adults

“…The theoretical model included 12 mediators—four behavioural indices and eight cognitive emotional variables—that constituted the basis for the intervention (Figure 1). 39,40 …”

“…The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI), a different but related construct, was used to assess discriminant or divergent construct validity 46‐48 in relation to outcomes and selected mediators. Measures are defined below and elsewhere 40,45,49 Demographics and background characteristics include age, gender, race/ethnicity, income and self‐rating of oral health (4‐point Likert scale 1‐4 with four as best); Oral Hygiene Self‐management Worries Scale (OHWSMS).…”

“…The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI), a different but related construct, was used to assess discriminant or divergent construct validity[46][47][48] in relation to outcomes and selected mediators. Measures are defined below and elsewhere 40,45,49. 1.…”