International journal of behavioral medicine · 2012
Social support and optimism in relation to the oral health of young adults.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brennan David Simon, Spencer A J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors largely external to the individual--such as social support and those that are inherently dispositional, like optimism--may both play a role in determining oral health outcomes and serve to buffer the effect of each other.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess associations of social support and optimism on oral health.
METHOD: In 2005-2006, n = 1,859 persons around 30 years old were surveyed to collect data on social support, optimism, oral health-related quality of life, and caries experience.
RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses found high social support associated (P < 0.05) with fewer (mean ± SE) decayed teeth (0.6 ± 0.1) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.7 ± 0.2) compared to low support (1.0 ± 0.2 and 4.5 ± 0.4 respectively). High optimism was associated with fewer missing teeth (2.1 ± 0.2) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.1 ± 0.2) compared to low optimism (2.9 ± 0.2 and 3.8 ± 0.2, respectively). Multivariate regressions adjusted for dental visiting, toothbrushing, sex, income, work status and education showed social support and optimism had (P < 0.05) negative associations with missing teeth (β = -1.0) and caries experience (β = -1.5) for high support/high optimism compared to low support/low optimism. All three non-reference combinations of support/optimism showed negative associations (β = -1.6 to -2.4) with impact of problems compared to low support/low optimism.
CONCLUSIONS: Social support and optimism were associated with oral health. Impact of dental problems showed buffering of high support when optimism was low, and high optimism when support was low.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess associations of social support and optimism on oral health.
METHOD: In 2005-2006, n = 1,859 persons around 30 years old were surveyed to collect data on social support, optimism, oral health-related quality of life, and caries experience.
RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses found high social support associated (P < 0.05) with fewer (mean ± SE) decayed teeth (0.6 ± 0.1) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.7 ± 0.2) compared to low support (1.0 ± 0.2 and 4.5 ± 0.4 respectively). High optimism was associated with fewer missing teeth (2.1 ± 0.2) and less negative impact on quality of life (2.1 ± 0.2) compared to low optimism (2.9 ± 0.2 and 3.8 ± 0.2, respectively). Multivariate regressions adjusted for dental visiting, toothbrushing, sex, income, work status and education showed social support and optimism had (P < 0.05) negative associations with missing teeth (β = -1.0) and caries experience (β = -1.5) for high support/high optimism compared to low support/low optimism. All three non-reference combinations of support/optimism showed negative associations (β = -1.6 to -2.4) with impact of problems compared to low support/low optimism.
CONCLUSIONS: Social support and optimism were associated with oral health. Impact of dental problems showed buffering of high support when optimism was low, and high optimism when support was low.