ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2022
Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) deputized to informal caregivers: Go or no go?
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping review on orofacial pain management in older adults with dementia.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Consensus-based development of a short screening tool predicting oral health deterioration in older people for use by general practitioners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Longitudinal changes in oral conditions and oral candidiasis in palliative care inpatients: a longitudinal observational study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing approaches to determining poor oral health among older adults in a national survey.Gerodontology · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- A comprehensive assessment of oral health, swallowing difficulty, and nutritional status in older nursing home residents.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) deputized to informal caregivers: Go or no go?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInvestigating the usability of the Dutch version of the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT-NL) with informal caregivers of community-dwelling older people with suspected dementia, without specific training. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn accordance with guidelines for establishing the cultural equivalency of instruments, the OHAT was translated into Dutch. Fifteen informal caregivers of community-dwelling older people with suspected dementia and, as a reference standard, a dentist assessed the oral health of the older people using the OHAT-NL. The caregivers' scores were compared with the dentist's scores. The usability of the OHAT-NL was rated on a 10-point scale (0 = incomprehensible, and 10 = very user friendly) and investigated further through short structured interviews.
resultsThere were differences between the dentist's and caregivers' assessments of the individual categories of the OHAT-NL. The specificity of the need to visit an oral health care professional was 100.0%, while the sensitivity was 78.6%. The informal caregivers concluded that the tool made them more aware of different aspects of oral health. The tool was rated with a mean score of 7.7 (SD 1.7).
conclusionThe OHAT-NL could be a useful tool for informal caregivers without specific training to indicate whether the person they care for should visit an oral health care professional.
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.