Do We Need More Than One Child Perceptions Questionnaire?
Do We Need More Than One Child Perceptions Questionnaire?
A survey was conducted of approximately 200 5- to 8-year-old children attending for dental treatment in Hawkes Bay community clinics in 2011. The number of children chosen for this study was to assist in informing sample size determination for a larger multicentre trial. Ethical approval was obtained from the Central Regional Ethics Committee. Consent was obtained from both parent and child before proceeding.
Information was gathered on each child's sex, age and ethnicity. The children were categorized into two age groups, with "older" being the 7- and 8-year-olds, and "younger" being the 5- and 6-year-olds. An area-based deprivation measure was used to allocate each participant to a deprivation decile score, based on the residential address. Areas with scores 1 to 3 were classified as "low deprivation"; those with scores 8 to 10 were classified as "high deprivation".
Qualified dental therapists undertook routine clinical examinations, having been trained in the study protocol at the community clinics. Baseline charting recorded for each child included decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth. Posterior bitewing radiographs were also taken, and these were used to amend the children's dmft scores appropriately. Intra-examiner reliability was undertaken on twenty films by one experienced clinician who read all the radiographs, with ICC = 0.82.
Oral health-related quality of life was measured using both the 16-item impact short-form CPQ11–14-ISF:16 questionnaire and the 25-item CPQ8–10 (Table 1). The overlap in item content between the two questionnaires enabled both versions to be incorporated into a 26-item questionnaire. The reference period used for both was the previous four weeks, as originally used in the CPQ8–10 questionnaire. Response options and scores were: 'Never' (scoring 0); 'once or twice' (1); 'Sometimes' (2); 'Often' (3); and 'Every day or almost every day' (4). An overall CPQ11–14 and CPQ8–10 score was computed by summing the appropriate item scores for each measure, with a higher score indicating poorer OHRQoL. Test-retest reliability was not examined for either measure. Childrens' perceptions of their oral health were assessed using two global measures. First, they were asked to rate the health of their teeth and mouth (response options: 'Very good', 'Good', 'OK' or 'Poor'). Second, they were asked how much their teeth or mouth bother them (response options: 'Not at all', 'A little bit', 'Some' or 'A lot'). The research assistant administered the questionnaire and read each question to the child.
Data were analysed with SPSS (version 18.0). The computation of descriptive statistics was followed by bivariate analyses, which used Chi-square tests for comparing proportions; Mann–Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used (as appropriate) for comparing scores for continuous variables (where these were not normally distributed). Where continuous variables were normally distributed, ANOVA was used to compare means. The alpha value was set at 0.05. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were computed to inform the assessment of associations among sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics. Pearson's r was used to examine the correlation between scores on the two scales (CPQ11–14 and CPQ8–10).
Method
A survey was conducted of approximately 200 5- to 8-year-old children attending for dental treatment in Hawkes Bay community clinics in 2011. The number of children chosen for this study was to assist in informing sample size determination for a larger multicentre trial. Ethical approval was obtained from the Central Regional Ethics Committee. Consent was obtained from both parent and child before proceeding.
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Information was gathered on each child's sex, age and ethnicity. The children were categorized into two age groups, with "older" being the 7- and 8-year-olds, and "younger" being the 5- and 6-year-olds. An area-based deprivation measure was used to allocate each participant to a deprivation decile score, based on the residential address. Areas with scores 1 to 3 were classified as "low deprivation"; those with scores 8 to 10 were classified as "high deprivation".
Clinical Measures
Qualified dental therapists undertook routine clinical examinations, having been trained in the study protocol at the community clinics. Baseline charting recorded for each child included decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth. Posterior bitewing radiographs were also taken, and these were used to amend the children's dmft scores appropriately. Intra-examiner reliability was undertaken on twenty films by one experienced clinician who read all the radiographs, with ICC = 0.82.
OHRQoL Measures
Oral health-related quality of life was measured using both the 16-item impact short-form CPQ11–14-ISF:16 questionnaire and the 25-item CPQ8–10 (Table 1). The overlap in item content between the two questionnaires enabled both versions to be incorporated into a 26-item questionnaire. The reference period used for both was the previous four weeks, as originally used in the CPQ8–10 questionnaire. Response options and scores were: 'Never' (scoring 0); 'once or twice' (1); 'Sometimes' (2); 'Often' (3); and 'Every day or almost every day' (4). An overall CPQ11–14 and CPQ8–10 score was computed by summing the appropriate item scores for each measure, with a higher score indicating poorer OHRQoL. Test-retest reliability was not examined for either measure. Childrens' perceptions of their oral health were assessed using two global measures. First, they were asked to rate the health of their teeth and mouth (response options: 'Very good', 'Good', 'OK' or 'Poor'). Second, they were asked how much their teeth or mouth bother them (response options: 'Not at all', 'A little bit', 'Some' or 'A lot'). The research assistant administered the questionnaire and read each question to the child.
Data were analysed with SPSS (version 18.0). The computation of descriptive statistics was followed by bivariate analyses, which used Chi-square tests for comparing proportions; Mann–Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used (as appropriate) for comparing scores for continuous variables (where these were not normally distributed). Where continuous variables were normally distributed, ANOVA was used to compare means. The alpha value was set at 0.05. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were computed to inform the assessment of associations among sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics. Pearson's r was used to examine the correlation between scores on the two scales (CPQ11–14 and CPQ8–10).