2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2021.101645
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standardization of Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Using Ohip-5 – Validation of “Recommendations for Use and Scoring of Oral Health Impact Profile Versions”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, neither the OHIP-14 nor the reduced OHIP-5 quantifies the impact of implant-related complications on patient perceptions (John, 2022). Although a more complete or semi-structured set of qualitative questions could have described more nuanced perceptions, the questions selected were direct and compact to avoid the questionnaire being long, complex and burdensome for patients to answer (Schaeffer & Dykema, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, neither the OHIP-14 nor the reduced OHIP-5 quantifies the impact of implant-related complications on patient perceptions (John, 2022). Although a more complete or semi-structured set of qualitative questions could have described more nuanced perceptions, the questions selected were direct and compact to avoid the questionnaire being long, complex and burdensome for patients to answer (Schaeffer & Dykema, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the absence of standardisation, this study used five questions corresponding to the four categories of pain, function, appearance and psychosocial impact to represent the four main dimensions of OHRQoL (Mittal et al, 2019; Schierz & Reissman, 2021), in addition to the patient's confidence in possible new treatments. However, neither the OHIP‐14 nor the reduced OHIP‐5 quantifies the impact of implant‐related complications on patient perceptions (John, 2022). Although a more complete or semi‐structured set of qualitative questions could have described more nuanced perceptions, the questions selected were direct and compact to avoid the questionnaire being long, complex and burdensome for patients to answer (Schaeffer & Dykema, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar tendencies have also been identified within the cariologic research field, where outcomes have focused on caries experience and the clinical performance of restoration materials rather than patient satisfaction (Levey et al., 2017). Relatively, recently in dentistry, patient‐related outcomes (PROs), defined by the National Quality Forum as ‘any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else’ have received more attention, with dental PROs (dPROs) now being proposed in several fields (Hua, 2019; John, 2022; Reissmann, 2019; Shayestehpour et al., 2022). The trend towards more patient‐related outcomes within oral health research is welcomed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second article, John 10 investigates a specific dPRO measure --the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP). He reports a replication study aimed to validate findings that supported the "Recommendations for use and scoring of OHIP versions".…”
Section: Standardization Of Dpro-related Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results of this study show that findings from the "Recommendations for use and scoring of OHIP versions" are replicable, which further supports the conclusion that psychometrically solid and practical oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) assessment in all settings across all oral health conditions can be achieved with OHIP-5, 12,13 and that OHIP-5 can be used to replace longer OHIP versions. 10,11…”
Section: Standardization Of Dpro-related Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%