The development and psychometric properties of oral health assessment instruments used by non-dental professionals for nursing home residents: a systematic review.
Geriatric assessment
Non-dental professionals
Oral health
Psychometrics
Reliability
Validity
Journal
BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 01 2021
09 01 2021
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
accepted:
25
12
2020
entrez:
10
1
2021
pubmed:
11
1
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Globally, oral health status of the geriatric population residing in nursing homes is poor. The integration of non-dental professionals is vital to monitor oral health, early identification and triaging of oral health problems, and timely referral to dental professionals. The aims of this systematic review were to provide a summary on the development and characteristics of oral health assessment instruments currently used by non-dental professionals for nursing home residents, and to perform a critical appraisal of their psychometric properties. This review was conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. CINHAL (EBSCO), Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched systematically. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text of the studies as per the eligibility criteria. Studies describing oral health assessment instruments used to assess oral health of nursing home residents by non-dental professionals were included. Using a methodological framework, each instrument was evaluated for purpose, content, and psychometric properties related to validity, reliability, feasibility, generalisability, and responsiveness. Additionally, the reporting quality assessment of each included study was performed according to the SURGE guidelines. Out of the 819 screened articles, 10 studies were included in this review. The 10 identified instruments integrated 2 to 12 categories to assess oral health, which was scored on a 2 to 5-point scale. However, the measurement content varied widely, and none were able to comprehensively measure all aspects of oral health. Three measurement approaches were identified: performance- based assessment, direct inspection of the oral health status, and interview measures. Only eight instruments provided quality assessment on the basis of validity, reliability, feasibility and generalisability, whereas three instruments- Brief Oral Health Status Examination, Dental Hygiene Registration, and Oral Health Assessment Tool reported good methodological quality on at least one assessment criteria. None of the instruments identified in this review provided a comprehensive assessment of oral health, while three instruments appeared to be valid and reliable. Nonetheless, continuous development of instruments is essential to embrace the complete spectrum of oral health and address the psychometric gaps.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Globally, oral health status of the geriatric population residing in nursing homes is poor. The integration of non-dental professionals is vital to monitor oral health, early identification and triaging of oral health problems, and timely referral to dental professionals. The aims of this systematic review were to provide a summary on the development and characteristics of oral health assessment instruments currently used by non-dental professionals for nursing home residents, and to perform a critical appraisal of their psychometric properties.
METHODS
This review was conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. CINHAL (EBSCO), Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched systematically. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text of the studies as per the eligibility criteria. Studies describing oral health assessment instruments used to assess oral health of nursing home residents by non-dental professionals were included. Using a methodological framework, each instrument was evaluated for purpose, content, and psychometric properties related to validity, reliability, feasibility, generalisability, and responsiveness. Additionally, the reporting quality assessment of each included study was performed according to the SURGE guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of the 819 screened articles, 10 studies were included in this review. The 10 identified instruments integrated 2 to 12 categories to assess oral health, which was scored on a 2 to 5-point scale. However, the measurement content varied widely, and none were able to comprehensively measure all aspects of oral health. Three measurement approaches were identified: performance- based assessment, direct inspection of the oral health status, and interview measures. Only eight instruments provided quality assessment on the basis of validity, reliability, feasibility and generalisability, whereas three instruments- Brief Oral Health Status Examination, Dental Hygiene Registration, and Oral Health Assessment Tool reported good methodological quality on at least one assessment criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
None of the instruments identified in this review provided a comprehensive assessment of oral health, while three instruments appeared to be valid and reliable. Nonetheless, continuous development of instruments is essential to embrace the complete spectrum of oral health and address the psychometric gaps.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33422009
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01989-8
pii: 10.1186/s12877-020-01989-8
pmc: PMC7797120
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 1033213, 1069861, 1134075
Références
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11 Suppl 1:S10-8
pubmed: 17540294
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Healthc Manage Forum. 2008 Spring;21(1):33-9
pubmed: 18814426
Community Dent Health. 2017 Dec 01;34(4):203-207
pubmed: 29136361
Nurs Res Pract. 2013;2013:827670
pubmed: 23819046
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Aug;31(4):275-84
pubmed: 12846850
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):809.e1-809.e8
pubmed: 28733184
Gerontologist. 1990 Jun;30(3):293-307
pubmed: 2354790
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Acta Diabetol. 2018 Jul;55(7):653-667
pubmed: 29502214
J Gerontol Nurs. 2008 Sep;34(9):33-9
pubmed: 18795563
Community Dent Health. 2014 Dec;31(4):224-33
pubmed: 25665356
J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(8):874-886
pubmed: 28972239
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:2
pubmed: 22587842
J Dent Educ. 1990 Nov;54(11):680-7
pubmed: 2229624
J Public Health Dent. 2002 Spring;62(2):78-83
pubmed: 11989210
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Nov;83(11):1524-9
pubmed: 12422319
Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Feb 11;10:461-7
pubmed: 25709420
Int J Older People Nurs. 2009 Jun;4(2):97-113
pubmed: 20925809
Am J Public Health. 2012 Mar;102(3):411-8
pubmed: 22390504
Community Dent Health. 2010 Dec;27(4 Suppl 2):257-67
pubmed: 21313969
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2017 Oct;2(4):330-342
pubmed: 30931751
Spec Care Dentist. 2001 Mar-Apr;21(2):63-7
pubmed: 11484583
Spec Care Dentist. 1997 Jan-Feb;17(1):13-8
pubmed: 9582704
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;33(2):81-92
pubmed: 15725170
Int Dent J. 2017 Sep;67 Suppl 2:26-33
pubmed: 29023741
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Feb;63(2):375-8
pubmed: 25688608
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 11;8(1):8871
pubmed: 29891862
Intern Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;10(4):525-7
pubmed: 25833085
Res Gerontol Nurs. 2017 Sep 1;10(5):234-239
pubmed: 28926671
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):366-79
pubmed: 20638235
BMC Public Health. 2014 Nov 24;14:1207
pubmed: 25418011
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jun 16;10:166
pubmed: 20550719
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Apr;50(4):569-82
pubmed: 23290098
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2004;2(3):1-89
pubmed: 27820001
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug;8(8):e1001069
pubmed: 21829330
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017 Aug;130:266-277
pubmed: 28662464
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Feb 29;16:53
pubmed: 26928080
Aust Dent J. 2005 Sep;50(3):191-9
pubmed: 16238218
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 29;5(12):e009476
pubmed: 26715480
Res Gerontol Nurs. 2014 Mar-Apr;7(2):87-100
pubmed: 24444451
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Mar;65(3):580-585
pubmed: 28152161
West J Nurs Res. 2002 Jun;24(4):345-53
pubmed: 12035909
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2018;16(2):113-124
pubmed: 29736489
Oncol Nurs Forum. 1988 May-Jun;15(3):325-30
pubmed: 3287344
Gerodontology. 2019 Dec;36(4):382-394
pubmed: 31274218
Spec Care Dentist. 2005 Sep-Oct;25(5):227-33
pubmed: 16454098
J Clin Nurs. 2017 Jul;26(13-14):1845-1853
pubmed: 27323699
Gerontologist. 1995 Dec;35(6):814-24
pubmed: 8557208
Spec Care Dentist. 2002 Sep-Oct;22(5):181-6
pubmed: 12580356
Spec Care Dentist. 1999 Jul-Aug;19(4):154-7
pubmed: 10765880
Gerodontology. 2017 Jun;34(2):232-239
pubmed: 28066920
Gerodontology. 2012 Jun;29(2):e748-55
pubmed: 22023222
Swed Dent J. 2005;29(3):113-24
pubmed: 16255355
Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):148-56
pubmed: 25155109
Community Dent Health. 2017 Mar;34(1):14-18
pubmed: 28561552
Pflege. 2012 Apr;25(2):97-105
pubmed: 22473733
Popul Health Metr. 2016 Oct 21;14:36
pubmed: 27785121
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;58(8):791-801
pubmed: 16018914
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 Sep;55(9):1470-1
pubmed: 17767691
Nurs Res. 2016 May-Jun;65(3):215-23
pubmed: 27124257
J Public Health Dent. 2006 Summer;66(3):199-204
pubmed: 16913247
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Dec;27(23-24):4381-4389
pubmed: 29943858