ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2012
Overcoming data challenges examining oral health disparities in appalachia.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A theory of oral healthcare decision-making in Appalachia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Pittsburgh as a High Risk Population: The Potential Savings of a Personalized Dental Care Plan.International journal of dentistry · 2016Article
- Tooth loss in Appalachia and the Mississippi delta relative to other regions in the United States, 1999-2010.American journal of public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of our study of oral health disparities in Appalachia was to use existing data sources to geographically analyze suspected disparities in oral health status in the 420 counties of Appalachia, and to make sub-state comparisons within Appalachia and to the rest of the nation. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the methods used to overcome challenges associated with using limited oral health data to make inferences about oral health status.
methodsOral health data were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Because the BRFSS was designed for state-level analysis, there were inadequate numbers of responses to study Appalachia by county. We set out to determine the smallest possible unit we could use, aggregating data to satisfy CDC minimum requirements for spatially identified responses. For sub-state comparisons, data were first aggregated to Appalachian and non-Appalachian regions within Appalachian states. Next, urban versus rural areas within Appalachian and non-Appalachian regions were examined. Beale codes were used to define metropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical regions for the United States.
resultsAggregating the data as described proved useful for smoothing the data used to analyze oral health disparities, while still revealing important sub-state differences. Using geographic information systems to map data throughout the process was very useful for determining an effective approach for our analysis. DISCUSSION: Studying oral health disparities on a regional or national level is difficult given a lack of appropriate data. The BRFSS can be adapted for this purpose; however, there is a limited number of oral health questions and because they are also optional, they are not routinely asked by all states. Expanding the BRFSS to include a larger sampling frame would be very helpful for studying oral health disparities.
conclusionsNovel techniques were introduced to use BRFSS data to study oral health disparities in Appalachia, which provided informative sub-state results, useful to health planners for targeting intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.