Abstract
Aim: To compare two approaches to determining self-reported change in oral health over time among younger adults.
Methods: This was a longstanding prospective cohort study of all individuals born in 1972/73 in Dunedin (NZ). At ages 26 and 32, participants self-rated their oral health relative to their peers, and a self-referent global transition judgment (GTJ) item was used at age 32. Systematic oral examinations conducted at age 26 were repeated at age 32, and the OHIP-14 was used at 32.
Results: Complete data were available for 918 individuals (49.1% female), of whom 41.9% and 48.3% rated their oral health as below average (relative to their peers) at ages 26 and 32 respectively. These self-rating categories were used to identify those who had improved (ie. changed from below to above average; 10.6%), worsened (16.9%) or stayed the same (72.5%) between ages 26 and 32. When the GTJ was used, 8.6% reported that their oral health had improved since age 26; 33.4% reported deterioration, and 58.0% no change. There was only moderate concordance between the two change measures, and the GTJ showed a stronger and more consistent association with a range of other measures of oral health (including both clinical indicators and OHIP-14 scores).
Conclusion: The global transition judgment appeared to be a better self-report indicator of age-26-to-32 change in oral health than the derived variable.