Dataset Information

Austin Powers bites back: a cross sectional comparison of US and English national oral health surveys.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare oral health in the US and England and to assess levels of educational and income related oral health inequalities between both countries.

Design

Cross sectional analysis of US and English national surveys.

Setting

Non-institutionalised adults living in their own homes.

Participants

Oral health measures and socioeconomic indicators were assessed in nationally representative samples: the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 for England, and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-08. Adults aged ≥25 years were included in analyses with samples of 8719 (England) and 9786 (US) for analyses by education, and 7184 (England) and 9094 (US) for analyses by income.

Main outcome measures

Number of missing teeth, self rated oral health, and oral impacts on daily life were outcomes. Educational attainment and household income were used as socioeconomic indicators. Age standardised estimates of oral health were compared between countries and across educational and income groups. Regression models were fitted, and relative and absolute inequalities were measured using the relative index of inequality (RII) and the slope index of inequality (SII).

Results

The mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the US (7.31 (standard error 0.15)) than in England (6.97 (0.09)), while oral impacts were higher in England. There was evidence of significant social gradients in oral health in both countries, although differences in oral health by socioeconomic position varied according to the oral health measure used. Consistently higher RII and SII values were found in the US than in England, particularly for self rated oral health. RII estimates for self rated oral health by education were 3.67 (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.17) in the US and 1.83 (1.59 to 2.11) in England. In turn, SII values were 42.55 (38.14 to 46.96) in the US and 18.43 (14.01 to 22.85) in England.

Conclusions

The oral health of US citizens is not better than the English, and there are consistently wider educational and income oral health inequalities in the US compared with England.

SUBMITTER: Guarnizo-Herreno CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4681766 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Previous studies, in late 20th century, suggest an increase in the prevalence of neck pain and low back pain among children and adolescents, when neck and low back pain were studied separately. This study investigated time trends in adolescent spinal pain between 1991 and 2011 by classifying pain into the following three classes: neck pain alone, low back pain alone, and concomitant neck and low back pain. METHODS: Representative samples of 12 to 18-year-old Finns were sent a questionnaire in 1991, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. Information was gathered about the frequency of neck and low back pain with a six-month recall period. Statistical methods used included descriptive analysis, and generalized linear models. RESULTS: The total number of respondents in these eight comparable cross-sectional surveys was 51 044 with a response proportion of 64%. The prevalence of concomitant neck and low back pain showed a steady increase from 1991 to 2009/2011; the prevalence almost quadrupled among 12-14-year-olds girls (from 2% to 7.5%), and more than doubled among 12-14-year-old boys (from 1.6% to 3.8%), and among 16-18-year old boys (from 4.2 to 9.9%) and girls (6.9% to 15.9%). The prevalence of neck pain alone only increased in the 1990s (e.g. among 16-18-year-old girls 22.9% in 1991, 29.2% in 1999, and 29.5% in 2011), while the prevalence of low back pain alone remained relatively constant during the last two decades (e.g. among 16-18-year-old girls 4% in 1991, 3.1% in 1999, and 3.7% in 2011). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant neck and low back pain has constantly increased in the last two decades among adolescents, while single neck pain has only increased in the 1990s. Single low back pain has remained relatively constant. Thus, earlier detected increase in low back pain in the 1990s was explained by the increase in concomitant neck and low back pain. Differences in the time trends in the three pain conditions might suggest, at least partly, different risk factors and aetiology for single- and multisite spinal pain among adolescents. This hypothesis needs further investigations.

Project description:BackgroundThe involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients' perspectives is challenging. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants' back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those "with back pain" and those "without back pain," then offered both those with (RMDQ score ≥7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided.ResultsWe conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups' rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities.ConclusionsCrowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.