Untitled 1http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8651895 Volume 17 2018 e18013 Original Article 1 Department of Periodontology and Community Dentistry, University of Ibadan and University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria Corresponding author: Dr. Folake B. Lawal, Department of Periodontology and Community Dentistry, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, PMB 5017 Ibadan 200212, Nigeria +2348023658988 folakemilawal@yahoo.com Received: August 20, 2017 Accepted: November 27, 2017 Non-clinical factors and predictors of self-rating of oral health among young adolescents in a rural Nigerian population Folake B. Lawal, BDS, MDS, FWACS, FMCDS; Mumini A. Dauda, BDS Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the non-clinical predictors of self-rating of oral health among young adolescents in a Nigerian rural population. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adolescents of 11-13 years old in Igboora, Nigeria. Information on self-rating of oral health, self-assessed satisfaction with oral health condition and tooth appearance, pain history, consultation with the dentist and oral hygiene measures were obtained using structured questionnaires translated to the local language. Data were analysed using SPSS version 23; Chi Square and logistic regression were used to establish associations between variables and predictors with p value < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 400 respondents participated in the study. Most 346 (86.5%) rated their oral health positively. Those who expressed dissatisfaction with the appearance of their teeth, 17 (44.7%) dissatisfaction with their oral health condition, 25 (45.5%) had toothache in the preceding six months, 44 (19.7%) perceived a need for dental treatment, 43 (16.7%) or cleaned their teeth once daily or less frequently, 37 (20.9%), rated their oral health poorly (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.012, p < 0.001, respectively). The significant predictors of self-rating of oral health were self-assessed satisfaction with oral health condition, toothache in the preceding six months and frequency of tooth cleaning. Conclusion: Satisfaction with oral health condition, toothache in the preceding six months and frequency of tooth cleaning are factors that predict self-rating of oral health in young adolescents in the rural community studied. Keywords: Adolescent health. Global self-rating. Non-clinical factors. Self-perception. Predictors. mailto:folakemilawal@yahoo.com 2 Lawal and Dauda Introduction Self-rating of oral health (SROH) subjectively evaluates oral health and has been used in clinical, epidemiological and public health settings1-7. It is a useful tool for oral dis- ease screening, assessment of oral health needs and disease surveillance2,4. It also complements clinical evaluation of oral health in planning, monitoring and evaluation of oral health intervention programmes2,4. SROH has been found valid in distinguishing between individuals with or without oral health problems; poor self-rating of oral health has been associated with oral diseases such as dental caries7-11. In addition, simplicity of SROH as a single item tool and its ability to evaluate the overall oral health of an indi- vidual amongst others makes it a valuable tool in underserved regions like rural commu- nities. SROH is however influenced by and associated with non-clinical factors1,8,10,12,13. In spite of the advantages of the SROH especially in rural communities in developing countries where dentists are rarely found, very little is known regarding the utility of this tool among adolescents. This is pertinent in view of the need to get preventive oral health across to adolescents at an age when habits are formed or cemented. This becomes important as contributory effects of cultural norms, more prevalent in rural communi- ties, to validity of self-rating of oral health has been documented in a previous study5. Furthermore, identification of predictors of self-rating of oral health could also help in stratifying target groups for oral health intervention, especially in rural set- tings in developing countries where the disproportionately poorer allocation of resources to oral health is more obvious. The aim of the study was to assess the non-clinical predictors of self-rating of oral health of young adolescents in a rural Nigerian population. Materials and Methods This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey conducted among adolescents aged 11 to 13 years in Igboora, a rural agrarian town in South-western Nigeria. Following ethical approval from the State’s Ethical Review Committee (AD/13/479/649), 400 consenting adolescents were recruited from schools selected through simple random sampling technique from the town between January and June 2015. Three primary schools were randomly selected from the list of 23 primary schools obtained from Ibarapa Central Local Government Schools’ Board. All the pupils in the sixth grade of the selected schools aged 11 to 13 years were then approached in the three schools and those who gave consent, and whose parents did not give a negative consent were approached consecutively until 400 students were recruited. A sample size of at least 384 was arrived at based on a probabilistic prev- alence of 50% in the absence of prevalence values from the literature14, an allowable error (d) of 5% and z statistic of 1.96 (confidence interval of 95%) - all inputted into the formula to calculate sample size in cross-sectional studies15. Structured interviewer administered questionnaires were used to obtain information from the students. The biodata of the respondents and basic information about the parents’ tribes, religious beliefs and occupational status were recorded. Information 3 Lawal and Dauda was also obtained on self-rating of oral health, self-assessed satisfaction with oral health condition and tooth appearance, history of dental pain, perception of need for dental treatment, prior consultation with the dentists and oral hygiene measures. The self-rating7 of oral health was recorded using a Likert scale with responses scored from 1 “very poor”, 2 “poor”, 3 “neither good nor poor”, 4 “good” to 5 “very good”. The responses were subsequently recoded on the computer as “poor” (very bad, bad and neither good nor bad) or “good” (good and very good). Self-assessed satisfaction with appearance of the teeth and satisfaction with oral health condition were also graded using a Likert scale with responses from 1 “dissatisfied”, 2 “dissatisfied”, 3 “neither dis- satisfied nor satisfied”, 4 “satisfied” to 5 “very satisfied”. The responses were recoded in each case for the two variables as “dissatisfied” (very dissatisfied, dissatisfied and neither dissatisfied nor satisfied) or “satisfied” (satisfied and very satisfied). The his- tory of dental pain was asked with a single question: “have you experienced toothache in the last six months that was serious enough for you to mention to your parents?” The response was either “Yes” or “No”. An independent translator translated the questionnaire to the local language, with a back translation having confirmed retention of test questions in spite of linguistic dif- ferences by another independent translator. The questionnaire was pre-tested and transculturally adapted among 30 school going pupils in another town. Only pupils who understood the local language and who consented were included in the study. Those with special needs were excluded from the study. The questionnaire was self-administered under supervision of a trained dentist. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Univariate analysis was presented using proportions, percent- ages and means (with standard deviations) as appropriate. Chi square statistics was used to test for associations between variables with non-clinical factors considered as independent variables and self-rating of oral health as the dependent variable with the reference category being poor rating. Row percentages were presented for clarity. Logistic regression was done by considering independent variables that were signifi- cant during bivariate analysis in order to identify predictors of self-rating of oral health among the respondents. Wald test was used to test for the statistical significance of the predictors. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant for this study. Results Four hundred adolescents with a mean age of 12.4 (SD = 0.7) years were recruited into the study of which 205 (51.3%) were females. The predominant occupations of the fathers were: commercial motorcycling (81, 20.3%), trading (63, 15.8%) and farming (60, 15.0%) and those of the mothers were: trading (261, 65.3%) and teaching (43, 10.8%). They were mostly of the Yoruba tribe (379, 94.8%), the dominant tribal group in southwest Nigeria. Most of the respondents (346, 86.5%) rated their oral health positively, 362 (90.5%) were satisfied with the appearance of their teeth and 345 (86.3%) were satisfied with their oral health condition. A total of 223 (54.8%) respondents have had signif- icant toothache in the preceding six months. Only 81 (20.3%) had been to a dentist before. The majority (258, 64.5%) perceived a need for dental treatment and the main 4 Lawal and Dauda treatment thought to be required were scaling and polishing (74, 18.5%) and relief of tooth/gum ache (51, 12.8%). More than half of the respondents (223, 55.8%) cleaned their teeth twice each day, the rest did so once a day or on most days of the week. A higher proportion of the respondents who expressed dissatisfaction with the appear- ance of their teeth self-rated their oral health as poor compared to those who were satisfied with the appearance of their teeth and rated their oral health similarly (44.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001). The proportion of those who rated their oral health poorly and were dissatisfied with their oral condition (45.5%) was higher than that of the respondents who rated their oral health poorly and were satisfied with their oral health condition (8.4%), p < 0.001. Similar relationships were observed between reporting toothache in the preceding six months, perception of need for dental treatment and frequency of tooth cleaning on one hand and self-rating of oral health on the other hand (Table 1). The respondents who were dissatisfied with their oral condition were nearly eight times more likely to self-rate their oral health status as poor (OR = 7.69, 95% CI: 3.16, 18.75, p < 0.001). Poor rating of oral health status was nearly three times higher in those who had reported toothache in the preceding six months than in those who had not (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.10, 5.82, p = 0.028). Respondents who cleaned their teeth once daily or less frequently were three times more likely to rate their oral health negatively than those who cleaned their teeth at least twice daily (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.74, 5.91, p < 0.001). Satisfac- tion with appearance of the teeth (p = 0.124) and perception of dental treatment need (p = 0.050) could not predict the self-rating of oral health status (Table 2). Table 1. Relationship between non-clinical factors and self-rating of oral health status of the respondents Non-clinical factors Self-rating of oral health Poor No (%) Good No (%) Total No (%) χ2 p value Appearance of teeth Dissatisfied 17 (44.7) 21 (55.3) 38 (100.0) 35.085 < 0.001* Satisfied 37 (10.2) 325 (89.8) 362 (100.0) Oral condition Dissatisfied 25 (45.5) 30 (54.5) 55 (100.0) 55.760 < 0.001* Satisfied 29 (8.4) 316 (91.6) 345 (100.0) Toothache in the past 6 months Yes 44 (19.7) 179 (80.3) 223 (100.0) 10.376 0.001* No 10 (5.6) 167 (94.4) 177 (100.0) Perceived need for treatment Yes 43 (16.7) 215 (83.3) 258 (100.0) 6.241 0.012* No 11 (7.7) 131 (92.3) 142 (100.0) Cleaning of teeth Once daily or less 37 (20.9) 140 (79.1) 177 (100.0) 14.904 < 0.001* Twice daily 17 (7.6) 206 (92.4) 223 (100.0) Total 54 (13.5) 346 (86.5) 400 (100.0) * - Statistically significant (p < 0.05) 5 Lawal and Dauda Discussion The present study conducted amongst adolescents in a rural town in a developing country showed a very favourable rating of oral health by individuals. There was signif- icant relationship between non-clinical factors and self-rating of oral health condition. These findings have impact on the utility of self-rating as a subjective measure of oral health status in underserved communities where access to dentists and clinical tools to diagnose oral conditions may be inadequate. The self-rating of oral health is a single item summary tool that has been validated for evaluation of oral health7. It is easy to administer and does not have the limitation imposed by inadequate oral health profes- sionals. It is a subjective assessment of oral health by individuals and is comparable to quality of life measures like OHIP-14, which has been evaluated and found appropriate in determining the unmet dental treatment needs of adolescents in similar settings16. This study found that the majority of the participants rated their oral health positively as very good and good, similar to previous studies5,17-19. Contrasting findings to this, was however noted by Jiang et al. 8, and Yamane-Taukechi et al.20, where 39% and 36.8% of the study participants rated their oral health as good or very good respec- tively. The differences in self-rating of oral health as reported by the studies may be attributed to varying perception of oral health that may occur among individuals. Bivariate analysis showed that positive rating of oral health was associated with self-per- ceived satisfaction with appearance of teeth and oral condition, this is in line with pre- vious findings that subjective assessment of oral health correlate strongly with each other as reported by authors of previous studies21-24. However, on multivariate analysis, only the relationship of satisfaction with oral condition was statistically significant. This finding may due to the fact that satisfaction with teeth appearance may vary extensively among individuals more so that it ultimately does not result in dysfunction of the den- tition. Moreover, perception of tooth appearance is highly subjective and influenced by what an individual considers as ideal25. In addition, the strong association of satisfac- tion rating of oral health condition and SROH may be contributory to their relevance as validation tools for other instrument of subjective assessment of oral health26,27. Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of relationship between non-clinical factors and self-rating of oral health status of the respondents Variable Categories of variable OR 95% CI p value Satisfaction with tooth appearance Dissatisfied 2.26 0.80 – 6.41 0.124 Satisfied Satisfaction with oral condition Dissatisfied 7.69 3.16 – 18.75 <0.001* Satisfied Toothache in preceding 6 months Yes 2.54 1.10 – 5.82 0.028* No Perceived treatment need Yes 2.40 1.00 – 5.75 0.050 No Tooth cleaning Once daily or less 3.20 1.74 – 5.91 <0.001* Twice daily *Statistically significant; reference category on logistic regression = poor self-rating of oral health 6 Lawal and Dauda Many of the respondents perceived a need for dental treatment and scaling and polishing (oral prophylaxis) was the main treatment mentioned. This is a proba- ble reflection of self-awareness of the significance of poor oral hygiene among this study group, which is commendable. Perceived need for treatment by the adoles- cents was significantly associated with rating of their oral health as poor in this study on bivariate analysis, similar to reports by other authors19,28,29. The presence of oral disease and conditions, which has been associated with poor rating of oral health, hence, perceiving a need for treatment, may be an explanation for this. Per- ceived need for treatment was however, not a significant factor on multivariate anal- ysis, thus not a determinant of SROH in this study. Participants with history of toothache rated their oral health poorly more often than those without toothache in the last six months. This finding has been corroborated by others29 who reported the impact pain has on subjective assessment of oral health. Pain is a significant factor that impacts negatively on the quality of life of individuals30. In addition, adolescents’ perception of oral health has been defined as presence or absence of disease or pain31. More than half of the students cleaned their teeth twice or more often daily, a reflection of good oral health practices among the study participants, which may be partly attributable to the school outreach programs previously conducted in the community. Multivariate analysis, furthermore, confirmed that twice or more daily tooth cleaning was significantly associated with SROH as good or very good in this study. Significant relationships between good oral health behaviour and self-per- ceived oral health have been documented in previous studies8,9. In addition, tooth cleaning described as one of the action-based definition of oral health concept in a qualitative study among adolescents in a rural county in Sweden31 is a strong sup- portive evidence for this finding. The importance of good oral hygiene behaviour in achieving good oral health is therefore to be promoted among the studied group in view of it being a determinant of positive rating of oral health among adolescents in a rural setting. A major limitation of this study was the inability to establish a cause and effect relationship between the self-rating of oral health and oral health status of the adolescents, which is inherent in the study design. In conclusion, satisfaction with oral health condition, twice daily tooth cleaning and pain are factors that predict self-rating of oral health in young adolescents in rural communities. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the students who participated in the study as well as to the teachers and principals who supported the study and gave the necessary approvals. References 1. Atchison K, Gift H. Perceived oral health in a diverse sample. Adv Dent Res. 1997;11(2):272-80. 2. Eke PI, Dye B. Assessment of self-report measures for predicting population prevalence of periodontitis. J Periodontol. 2009;80(9):1371-9. 7 Lawal and Dauda 3. Lee PH, McGrath CP, Kong AY, Lam TH. Selfreport poor oral health and chronic diseases: the Hong Kong FAMILY project. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(5):451-8. 4. Luzzi L, Jones K, Spencer A, Roberts-Thomson K. Association of urgent dental care with subjective oral health indicators and psychosocial impact. Community Dent Health. 2009;26(2):77-83. 5. Ostberg A, Lindblad U, Halling A. Self-perceived oral health in adolescents associated with family characteristics and parental employment status. Community Dent Health. 2003;20(3):159-64. 6. Ostberg AL, Halling A, Lindblad U. A gender perspective of self-perceived oral health in adolescents: associations with attitudes and behaviours. Community Dent Health. 2001;18(2):110-6. 7. Lawal FB. Global self-rating of oral health as summary tool for oral health evaluation in low-resource settings. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(Suppl 1):S1-6. 8. Jiang H, Petersen PE, Peng B, Tai B, Bian Z. Self-assessed dental health, oral health practices, and general health behaviors in Chinese urban adolescents. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005;63(6):343-52. 9. Kojima A, Ekuni D, Mizutani S, Furuta M, Irie K, Azuma T, et al. Relationships between self-rated oral health, subjective symptoms, oral health behavior and clinical conditions in Japanese university students: a cross-sectional survey at Okayama University. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13(1):62. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-13-62. 10. Pattussi MP, Olinto MTA, Hardy R, Sheiham A. Clinical, social and psychosocial factors associated with self‐rated oral health in Brazilian adolescents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35(5):377-86. 11. Tseveenjav B, Suominen AL, Varsio S, Knuuttila M, Vehkalahti MM. Do self-assessed oral health and treatment need associate with clinical findings? Results from the Finnish Nationwide Health 2000 Survey. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(8):926-35. 12. Gallego F, Larroulet C, Palomer L, Repetto A, Verdugo D. Socioeconomic inequalities in self-perceived oral health among adults in Chile. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):23. 13. Lindström M, Modén B, Rosvall M. Country of birth, parental background and self-rated health among adolescents: A population-based study. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42(8):743-50. 14. Arya R, Antonisamy B, Kumar S. Sample size estimation in prevalence studies. Indian J Pediatr. 2012;79(11):1482-8. 15. Lawal FB, Ifesanya JU. Oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) and its association with dental treatment needs of adolescents in a rural Nigerian community. Braz J Oral Sci. 2016 Jul-Sep;15(3):215-20. 16. Israel GD. Determining sample size. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences. Gainesville: EDIS; 1992. 17. Alsumait A, ElSalhy M, Raine K, Cor K, Gokiert R, Al-Mutawa S, et al. Impact of dental health on children’s oral health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):98. 18. Ericsson JS, Östberg AL, Wennström JL, Abrahamsson KH. Oral health‐related perceptions, attitudes, and behavior in relation to oral hygiene conditions in an adolescent population. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012;120(4):335-41. 19. Weyant RJ, Manz M, Corby P, Rustveld L, Close J. Factors associated with parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of oral health and need for dental treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35(5):321-30. 20. Yamane-Takeuchi M, Ekuni D, Mizutani S, Kataoka K, Taniguchi-Tabata A, Azuma T, et al. Associations among oral health-related quality of life, subjective symptoms, clinical status, and self-rated oral health in Japanese university students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):127. 21. Hongxing L, List T, Nilsson M, Johansson A, Astrøm AN. Validity and reliability of OIDP and OHIP-14: a survey of Chinese high school students. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14(1):158. 8 Lawal and Dauda 22. Krisdapong S, Sheiham A. Which aspects of an oral health–related quality of life measure are mainly associated with global ratings of oral health in children? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014;42(2):129-38. 23. Vera C, Moreno X, Rivera D. Adaptation and validation of Child Oral Impact on Daily Performance index in 11-14-year-old Chilean school children. J Oral Res. 2013;2(3):119-24. 24. Yusof ZY, Jaafar N. A Malay version of the Child Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (Child-OIDP) index: assessing validity and reliability. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):63. 25. Mandall N, McCord J, Blinkhorn A, Worthington H, O’Brien K. Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14-15-year-old Asian and Caucasian children in greater Manchester. Euro J Orthod. 2000;22(2):175-83. 26. Ahn YS, Kim HY, Hong SM, Patton LL, Kim JH, Noh HJ. Validation of a Korean version of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP) among 8‐to 15‐year‐old school children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012;22(4):292-301. 27. Nurelhuda NM, Ahmed MF, Trovik TA, Åstrøm AN. Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life among Sudanese schoolchildren using Child-OIDP inventory. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):152. 28. Kim HY, Patton LL. Intra-category determinants of global self‐rating of oral health among the elderly. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(1):68-76. 29. Kim HY, Patton LL, Park YD. Assessment of predictors of global self-ratings of oral health among Korean adults aged 18‐95 years. J Public Health Dent. 2010;70(3):241-4. 30. Clementino M, Pinto‐Sarmento T, Costa E, Martins C, Granville‐Garcia A, Paiva S. Association between oral conditions and functional limitations in childhood. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42(6):420-9. 31. Ostberg AL, Jarkman K, Lindblad U, Halling A. Adolescents’ perceptions of oral health and influencing factors: a qualitative study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(3):167-73.