Assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health‐related quality of life
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This paper illustrates ways of assessing the responsiveness of measures of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) by examining the sensitivity of the oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 to change when used to evaluate a dental care program for the elderly. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen elderly patients attending four municipally funded dental clinics completed a copy of the OHIP-14 prior to treatment and 1 month after the completion of treatment. The post-treatment questionnaire also included a global transition judgement that assessed subjects' perceptions of change in their oral health following treatment at the clinics. Change scores were calculated by subtracting post-treatment OHIP-14 scores from pre-treatment scores. The longitudinal construct validity of these change scores were assessed by means of their association with the global transition judgements. Measures of responsiveness included effect sizes for the change scores, the minimal important difference, and Guyatt's responsiveness index. An receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the accuracy of the change scores in predicting whether patients had improved or not as a result of the treatment. RESULTS: Based on the global transition judgements, 60.2% of subjects reported improved oral health, 33.6% reported no change, and only 6.2% reported that it was a little worse. These changes are reflected in mean pre- and post-treatment OHIP-14 scores that declined from 15.8 to 11.5 (P < 0.001). Mean change scores showed a consistent gradient in the expected direction across categories of the global transition judgement, but differences between the groups were not significant. However, paired t-tests showed no significant differences in the pre- and post-treatment scores of stable subjects, but showed significant declines for subjects who reported improvement. Analysis of data from stable subjects indicated that OHIP-14 had excellent test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.84. Effect size based on change scores for all subjects and subgroups of subjects were small to moderate. The ROC analysis indicated that OHIP-14 change scores were not good "diagnostic tests" of improvement. The minimal important difference for the OHIP-14 was of 5-scale points, but detecting this difference would require relatively large sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: OHIP-14 appeared to be responsive to change. However, the magnitude of change that it detected in the context described here was modest, probably because it was designed primarily as a discriminative measure. The psychometric properties of the global transition judgements that often provide the "gold standard" for responsiveness studies need to be established.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,106 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».