Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23992442›Full record

ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2013

Measuring and decomposing oral health inequalities in an UK population.

Jing Shen, John Wildman, Jimmy Steele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Demographic and Habitual Factors of Periodontal Disease among South Indian Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. The changing health needs of the UK population.Lancet (London, England) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Investigating social inequalities in older adults' dentition and the role of dental service use in 14 European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  13. Inequalities in oral health: Understanding the contributions of education and income.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2017
    Article
  14. Contextual and individual determinants of oral health-related quality of life in older Brazilians.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jing ShenInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
John Wildman
Jimmy Steele

Funding

Planning for International Studies of Population Oral Health DeterminantsR21DE018980 · NIDCR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SLADE, GARY DOUGLAS · 2008 to 2009
$238k
NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE018980NIDCR NIH HHS R21-DE018980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWith health inequalities high on the policy agenda, this study measures oral health inequalities in the UK.

methodsWe compare an objective clinical measure of oral health (number of natural teeth) with a self-reported measure of the impact of oral health (the Oral Health Impact Profile, OHIP) to establish whether the type of measure affects the scale of inequality measured. Gini coefficients and Concentration Indices (CIs) are calculated with subsequent decompositions using data from the 1998 UK Adult Dental Health Survey. Because the information on OHIP is only available on dentate individuals, analyses on the number of natural teeth are conducted for two samples - the entire sample and the sample with dentate individuals only, the latter to allow direct comparison with OHIP.

resultsWe find considerable overall pure oral health inequalities (number of teeth: Gini = 0.68 (including edentate), Gini = 0.40 (excluding edentate); OHIP: Gini = 0.33) and income-related inequalities for both measures (number of teeth: CI = 0.35 (including edentate), CI = 0.15 (excluding edentate); OHIP: CI = 0.03), and the CI is generally higher for the number of teeth than for OHIP. There are differences across age groups, with CI increasing with age for the number of teeth (excluding edentate: 16-30 years: CI = 0.01, 65 + years: CI = 0.11; including edentate: 16-30 years: CI = 0.01, 65 + years: CI = 0.19). However, inequalities for OHIP were highest in the youngest age group (CI = 0.05). Number of teeth reflects the accumulation of damage over a lifetime, while OHIP records more immediate concerns.

conclusionsThere are considerable pure oral health inequalities and income-related oral health inequalities in the UK. Using sophisticated methods to measure oral health inequality, we have been able to compare inequality in oral health with inequality in general health. The results provide a benchmark for future comparisons but also indicate that the type of health measure may be of considerable significance in how we think about and measure oral health inequalities.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsDental Health SurveysFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOral HealthSocioeconomic FactorsTooth LossUnited KingdomYoung Adultconcentration indexdecompositiongini indexhealth inequalityoral healthoral health impact profile

Identifiers

PMID23992442
PMCPMC3812409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.