Journal of the World federation of orthodontists · 2023
Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 telephone interview reliability to assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in orthosurgical patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Quintão Ana Paula, Quintão Cátia Cardoso Abdo, Holz Isabella Simões, Miguel José Augusto Mendes
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The influence of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 administration method through telephone or face-to-face interviews in orthosurgical patients is unknown. The study aims to assess the reliability of the OHIP-14 questionnaire through its stability and internal consistency when applied through a telephone interview compared with a face-to-face interview.
METHODS: A total of 21 orthosurgical patients were selected to compare the scores obtained in OHIP-14. The interview was carried out by telephone, and 2 weeks later, the patient was invited to attend a face-to-face interview. Stability was verified by Cohen's kappa coefficient with quadratic weighting for individual items and intraclass correlation coefficient for the total OHIP-14 score. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale and its seven subscales.
RESULTS: Items 5 and 6 showed reasonable agreement in the two modes of administration; 4 and 14 moderate; 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 substantial; and items 2, 8, 10, and 12 showed almost perfect agreement, according to the Cohen's kappa coefficient test. The instrument's internal consistency was better in the face-to-face interview (0.89) than it was in the telephone interview (0.85). For the evaluation of the seven OHIP-14 subscales, differences were found in functional limitations, psychological discomfort, and social disadvantage subscales.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there were some differences in OHIP-14 subscales between the interview methods, the total score of the questionnaire showed good stability and internal consistency. The telephone method can be a reliable alternative for the application of the OHIP-14 questionnaire in orthosurgical patients.
METHODS: A total of 21 orthosurgical patients were selected to compare the scores obtained in OHIP-14. The interview was carried out by telephone, and 2 weeks later, the patient was invited to attend a face-to-face interview. Stability was verified by Cohen's kappa coefficient with quadratic weighting for individual items and intraclass correlation coefficient for the total OHIP-14 score. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total scale and its seven subscales.
RESULTS: Items 5 and 6 showed reasonable agreement in the two modes of administration; 4 and 14 moderate; 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 substantial; and items 2, 8, 10, and 12 showed almost perfect agreement, according to the Cohen's kappa coefficient test. The instrument's internal consistency was better in the face-to-face interview (0.89) than it was in the telephone interview (0.85). For the evaluation of the seven OHIP-14 subscales, differences were found in functional limitations, psychological discomfort, and social disadvantage subscales.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there were some differences in OHIP-14 subscales between the interview methods, the total score of the questionnaire showed good stability and internal consistency. The telephone method can be a reliable alternative for the application of the OHIP-14 questionnaire in orthosurgical patients.