PortalPublikationenInfluence of administration method on oral health-related qu...

Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile.

Standard

Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. / Reißmann, Daniel; John, Mike T; Schierz, Oliver.

in: EUR J ORAL SCI, Jahrgang 119, Nr. 1, 1, 2011, S. 73-78.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Reißmann, D, John, MT & Schierz, O 2011, 'Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile.', EUR J ORAL SCI, Jg. 119, Nr. 1, 1, S. 73-78. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21244515?dopt=Citation>

APA

Reißmann, D., John, M. T., & Schierz, O. (2011). Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. EUR J ORAL SCI, 119(1), 73-78. [1]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21244515?dopt=Citation

Vancouver

Reißmann D, John MT, Schierz O. Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. EUR J ORAL SCI. 2011;119(1):73-78. 1.

Bibtex

@article{bef7b0735b624341b377d803182ad143,
title = "Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile.",
abstract = "The influence of the administration method used to collect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) data is largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether OHRQoL information obtained using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) differed with different methods of collection (personal interview, via telephone or as a self-administered questionnaire). The OHRQoL was measured using the German version of the OHIP. The instrument was administered to each of 42 patients using three different methods, in a randomized order, about 1 wk apart. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the repeated OHIP assessment across the three methods of administration, and the magnitude of the variance component for administration method, were determined, characterizing the degree of OHIP score variation that is caused by this factor. Whereas OHIP mean score differences of 3.9 points were present between administration methods, the reliability coefficient of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) indicated that 90% of the OHIP score variation was caused by differences between subjects (and not by the administration method or measurement error). The variance component for administration method explained 0.5% of the OHIP score variation. In conclusion, the method of administration (personal interview, telephone interview or self-administered questionnaire) did not influence substantially OHIP scores in prosthodontic patients.",
keywords = "Adult, Humans, Male, Aged, Female, Middle Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Questionnaires, Young Adult, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Analysis of Variance, Interviews as Topic, *Oral Health, *Sickness Impact Profile, *Quality of Life, *Research Design, Self-Assessment, Telephone, Adult, Humans, Male, Aged, Female, Middle Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Questionnaires, Young Adult, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Analysis of Variance, Interviews as Topic, *Oral Health, *Sickness Impact Profile, *Quality of Life, *Research Design, Self-Assessment, Telephone",
author = "Daniel Rei{\ss}mann and John, {Mike T} and Oliver Schierz",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "119",
pages = "73--78",
journal = "EUR J ORAL SCI",
issn = "0909-8836",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile.

AU - Reißmann, Daniel

AU - John, Mike T

AU - Schierz, Oliver

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The influence of the administration method used to collect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) data is largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether OHRQoL information obtained using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) differed with different methods of collection (personal interview, via telephone or as a self-administered questionnaire). The OHRQoL was measured using the German version of the OHIP. The instrument was administered to each of 42 patients using three different methods, in a randomized order, about 1 wk apart. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the repeated OHIP assessment across the three methods of administration, and the magnitude of the variance component for administration method, were determined, characterizing the degree of OHIP score variation that is caused by this factor. Whereas OHIP mean score differences of 3.9 points were present between administration methods, the reliability coefficient of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) indicated that 90% of the OHIP score variation was caused by differences between subjects (and not by the administration method or measurement error). The variance component for administration method explained 0.5% of the OHIP score variation. In conclusion, the method of administration (personal interview, telephone interview or self-administered questionnaire) did not influence substantially OHIP scores in prosthodontic patients.

AB - The influence of the administration method used to collect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) data is largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether OHRQoL information obtained using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) differed with different methods of collection (personal interview, via telephone or as a self-administered questionnaire). The OHRQoL was measured using the German version of the OHIP. The instrument was administered to each of 42 patients using three different methods, in a randomized order, about 1 wk apart. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the repeated OHIP assessment across the three methods of administration, and the magnitude of the variance component for administration method, were determined, characterizing the degree of OHIP score variation that is caused by this factor. Whereas OHIP mean score differences of 3.9 points were present between administration methods, the reliability coefficient of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) indicated that 90% of the OHIP score variation was caused by differences between subjects (and not by the administration method or measurement error). The variance component for administration method explained 0.5% of the OHIP score variation. In conclusion, the method of administration (personal interview, telephone interview or self-administered questionnaire) did not influence substantially OHIP scores in prosthodontic patients.

KW - Adult

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Aged

KW - Female

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Questionnaires

KW - Young Adult

KW - Regression Analysis

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Analysis of Variance

KW - Interviews as Topic

KW - Oral Health

KW - Sickness Impact Profile

KW - Quality of Life

KW - Research Design

KW - Self-Assessment

KW - Telephone

KW - Adult

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Aged

KW - Female

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Questionnaires

KW - Young Adult

KW - Regression Analysis

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Analysis of Variance

KW - Interviews as Topic

KW - Oral Health

KW - Sickness Impact Profile

KW - Quality of Life

KW - Research Design

KW - Self-Assessment

KW - Telephone

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

VL - 119

SP - 73

EP - 78

JO - EUR J ORAL SCI

JF - EUR J ORAL SCI

SN - 0909-8836

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -