Comparison of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (<scp>ECOHIS</scp>‐<scp>4D</scp>) and Child Health Utility Index (<scp>CHU‐9D</scp>) in children with oral diseases-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Comparison of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS‐4D) and Child Health Utility Index (CHU‐9D) in children with oral diseases

Published:2023-10-09 Issue: Volume: Page:
ISSN:0301-5661
Container-title:Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
language:en
Short-container-title:Comm Dent Oral Epid

Author:

Weerasuriya Sucharitha R.¹^ORCID,Hettiarachchi Ruvini M.²^ORCID,Kularatna Sanjeewa¹³^ORCID,Rohde Alexia¹^ORCID,Arrow Peter⁴^ORCID,Jamieson Lisa⁴^ORCID,Tonmukayakul Utsana⁵^ORCID,Senanayake Sameera¹³^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Queensland Australia

2. Centre for the Business and Economics of Health The University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia

3. Health Services and Systems Research Duke‐NUS Medical School Singapore Singapore

4. Adelaide Dental School The University of Adelaide South Australia Adelaide Australia

5. Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health Deakin University Geelong Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveAccurate assessment of child oral health is important for guiding economic evaluations and informing healthcare decision‐making. Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS‐4D) is a preference‐based instrument that measures the oral health‐related quality of life of young children. The aim of this study was to compare the utility scores of ECOHIS‐4D and Child Health Utility Index (CHU‐9D), against an oral health indicator to evaluate which utility score corresponds better with the oral health indicator.MethodThe ECOHIS‐4D and CHU‐9D were applied to 314 parent/child dyads from preschools in a primary healthcare setting in Perth, Western Australia. Four parameters were used to assess which instrument corresponds better with the oral health indicator (decayed, missing and filled teeth score‐dmft score): (i) discrimination, the ability to discriminate between different clinical severity groups, (ii) external responsiveness, how much the utility values relate to the changes in dmft scores, (iii) correlation, the association between the two instruments and the related dimensions and (iv) differences in the utility values across the two instruments.ResultsMost participants (81%) were 2–6 years old, and nearly 50% had a dmft score <3. ECOHIS‐4D demonstrated a superior ability to differentiate between dmft severity groups and respond to changes in dmft scores. A significant weak correlation was observed between dmft and ECOHIS‐4D (−0.26, 95%, CI −0.36 to −0.15) compared to a non‐significant very poor correlation between dmft and CHU‐9D (0.01, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.10). The utility scores of the two instruments had relatively good agreement towards good health and weak agreement towards poor health.ConclusionsECOHIS‐4D, the oral health‐specific instrument, is more sensitive in assessing children's oral health‐related quality of life than the generic CHU‐9D. Thus, ECOHIS‐4D is more appropriate for utility estimates in economic evaluations of oral health‐related interventions and resource allocation decision‐making.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Dentistry

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cdoe.12917

Reference33 articles.

1. World Health Organization.Oral health Key facts 2020 [25 March 2020]. Accessed November 3 2021.https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/oral‐health

2. Global, Regional, and National Prevalence, Incidence, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Oral Conditions for 195 Countries, 1990–2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors

3. Children’s oral health status in Australia, 2012–14

4. Health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016

5. ReenaPatel.The state of oral health in Europe. Report commissioned by the platform for better Oral health in Europe. Summary of Key Findings. September2012.