Background: In frail older people with natural teeth factors like polypharmacy, reduced salivary flow, a decrease of oral self-care, general healthcare issues, and a decrease in dental care utilization contribute to an increased risk for oral complications. On the other hand, oral morbidity may have a negative impact on frailty. Objective: This study explored associations between oral health and two frailty measures in community-dwelling older people. Design: A cross-sectional study. Setting: The study was carried out in a Primary Healthcare Center (PHC) in The Netherlands. Participants: Of the 5,816 persons registered in the PHC, 1,814 persons were eligible for participation at the start of the study. Measurements: Two frailty measures were used: 1. Being at risk for frailty, using Electronical Medical Record (EMR) data, and: 2. Survey-based frailty using ‘The Groningen Frailty Indicator’ (GFI). For oral health measures, dental-record data (dental care utilization, dental status, and oral health information) and self-reported oral problems were recorded. Univariate regression analyses were applied to determine the association between oral health and frailty, followed by age- and sex-adjusted multivariate logistic regressions. Results: In total 1,202 community-dwelling older people were included in the study, 45% were male and the mean age was 73 years (SD=8). Of all participants, 53% was at risk for frailty (638/1,202), and 19% was frail based on the GFI (222/1,202). A dental emergency visit (Odds Ratio (OR)= 2.0, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.33;3.02 and OR=1.58, 95% CI=1.00;2.49), experiencing oral problems (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.52;2.81 and OR=2.87, 95% CI= 2.07;3.99), and making dietary adaptations (OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31;5.41 and OR=5.49, 95% CI= 3.01;10.01) were associated with being at risk for frailty and surveybased frailty respectively. Conclusions: A dental emergency visit and self-reported oral health problems are associated with frailty irrespective of the approach to its measurement. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the associations of oral health and frailty in daily practice.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the identification of older people in need of dental consultation, with a Simplified Oral Indicator (SOI) used by home care nurses (HCNs) and with the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI-NL) completed by older people themselves, compared with the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT-NL), performed by dental hygienists.METHODS: The HCNs completed SOI based on their professional view, knowledge and experience; scores red/orange/green were given to older people for oral health and oral hygiene. Older people completed the GOHAI-NL and dental hygienists completed the OHAT-NL.RESULTS: Data from 141 older people were analysed. Sensitivity and specificity of SOI -OHAT-NL were low (0.45 and 0.64, respectively); SOI scored only few older people as 'red', while only 11 older people did not need a dental referral according to the OHAT-NL. OHAT-NL and GOHAI-NL correlation was significant, but low (r = -0.226, p = 0.012).CONCLUSION: Simplified Oral Indicator is currently not sensitive enough to identify older people in need of dental consultation. Additional education to HCNs and/or adjusting SOI may be needed. The GOHAI-NL seems not useful in dental triage.
DOCUMENT
Background: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
DOCUMENT
