Oral health-related quality of life is important for patients, but what about populations?
Oral health-related quality of life is important for patients, but what about populations?
复制标题
口腔健康相关的生活质量对于患者来说很重要，但是对于人群来说呢？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00718.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Slade,GaryD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Slade,GaryD
ObjectivesTo review population-based research into oral health-related quality of life.MethodsNarrative review of selected publications.ResultsIn the 1970年代，有两个激励因素来评估健康的非临床方面：（i）希望了解疾病对个人生活质量的影响;（ii）寻找人口水平的措施，可能更好地量化医疗保健系统对人口的影响。牙科研究人员对这些激励措施做出了回应，制作了数十份问卷，评估个人对主观口腔健康和生活质量的评分。这对临床牙科研究来说是一个布恩，例如，通过显示接受种植体支持义齿的患者的主观口腔健康得到了显着改善。此外，健康调查显示，弱势群体的主观口腔健康状况较差。然而，同样的措施显示，一般牙科护理的好处有限。此外，一些人口调查显示，今天的年轻人，谁长大了广泛接触预防牙科计划，有较差的主观口腔健康比前几代人经历了前所未有的口腔疾病水平。然而，实现的希望是主观口腔健康的“社会牙科指标”可能提供一个有意义的指标，以证明人口水平的牙科保健的好处。一个根本的限制是，人口健康是一个上下文的措施，而不仅仅是人口内的个人的汇总健康状况。ConclusionWhile研究人员已经成功地打破了临床教条，通过评估个人的口腔健康的主观方面，他们没有明确要求人们评估口腔健康的社区，他们生活。
ObjectivesTo review population‐based research into oral health‐related quality of life.MethodsNarrative review of selected publications.ResultsIn the 1970s, there were two incentives to assess nonclinical aspects of health: (i) a desire to understand the impacts of disease on individuals’ quality of life; and (ii) a search for population‐level measures that might better quantify the impact of health care systems on populations. Dental researchers responded to those incentives, creating dozens of questionnaires that assess individuals’ ratings of subjective oral health and quality of life. This has been a boon for clinical dental research, for example, by showing marked improvements in subjective oral health in patients receiving implant‐supported dentures. Also, health surveys show poorer subjective oral health among disadvantaged population groups. However, the same measures show only modest benefits of general dental care. Furthermore, several population surveys show that today's young adults, who grew up with widespread exposure to preventive dental programs, have poorer subjective oral health than earlier generations that experienced unprecedented levels of oral disease. Yet to materialize is the hope that ‘socio‐dental indicators’ of subjective oral health might provide a meaningful metric to demonstrate population‐level benefits of dental care. A fundamental limitation is that population health is a contextual measure, not merely the aggregated health status of individuals within the population.ConclusionWhile researchers have successfully broken with clinical dogma by assessing subjective dimensions of individuals’ oral health, they have failed to explicitly ask people to assess the oral health of the community in which they live.