Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35326939›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The MOHIP-14

Chengwu Yang, Shulamite S Huang, Tiffany A Moore Simas, Hugh Silk, Judith A Savageau, Stefanie L Russell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chengwu YangDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0561-2340
Shulamite S HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY 10010, USA.
Tiffany A Moore SimasDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Hugh SilkDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Judith A SavageauDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Stefanie L RussellDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY 10010, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2469-4217
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USBellevue Hospital Center · USYork University · US

Funding

Pathways to Oral Health Among Low-income Pregnant Urban WomenR01DE029963 · NIDCR · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RUSSELL, STEFANIE L · 2021 to 2024
$1.8M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE029963
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The 14-item version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) has been widely used as a measure for oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) since its publication in 1997. However, few studies have examined its psychometric properties and relationship with patient-reported oral health in pregnant women. Aim: To offer empirical evidence for appropriate use of the OHIP-14 among pregnant women in research and clinical practice. Objectives: (1) to empirically investigate the psychometric properties of the OHIP-14, (2) to modify it into the MOHIP-14PW (modified OHIP-14 for pregnant women), and (3) to compare their relationships with patient-reported oral health in pregnant women. Methods: In this real-world study (RWS) from suburban New York clinics, we collected OHIP-14 data from 291 pregnant women and assessed its psychometric properties at the item-, dimension-, and measure-level, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Accordingly, we modified the OHIP-14 into the MOHIP-14PW. Finally, we compared their correlations with patient-reported oral health scores. Results: All OHIP-14 items had severely skewed distributions, and two had a correlation with the patient-reported oral health < 0.1. All seven pairs of items correlated well (0.47 to 0.62), but the Cronbach’s alphas indicated suboptimal reliability, with two below 0.70. CFA results offered suboptimal support to the original structure, and EFA found a three-dimensional structure best fitted the data. Therefore, we modified the OHIP-14 into the MOHIP-14PW. CFA on the MOHIP-14PW offered stronger supports, and the Cronbach’s alphas increased to 0.92, 0.72, and 0.71. The MOHIP-14PW’s dimensions were more meaningful to pregnant women and had stronger relationships with patient-reported oral health than the OHIP-14; the average correlation coefficients increased by 26% from 0.19 in OHIP-14 to 0.24 in the MOHIP-14PW. Conclusions: The original OHIP-14 required modifications at the item-, dimension-, and measure- level, and the MOHIP-14PW had better psychometric properties, easier interpretation, and stronger correlation with patient-reported oral health in low-income pregnant women. Through an interdisciplinary RWS on a large sample of pregnant women, this study offers concrete empirical evidence for the advantages of the MOHIP-14PW over the original OHIP-14.

Indexed as

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)exploratory factor analysis (EFA)factor analysisOHIP-14oral health related quality of life (OHQoL)pregnant womenpsychometricsreal-world study (RWS)

Identifiers

PMID35326939
PMCPMC8951846
OpenAlexW4214724310

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.