Analysis of the perceived oral treatment need using Andersen's behavioural model

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of specific components of Andersen's behavioural model on adult individuals' perceived oral treatment need. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of 9,690 individuals, 20 to 89 years old, living in Skane, Sweden. The 58 questions, some with follow-up questions, were answered by 6,123 individuals; a 63% response rate. Selected for inclusion in the multivariate logistic regression analysis were those questions relating to Andersen's behavioural model, phase five. Responses to "How do you rate your oral treatment need today?" were used as a dependent variable. The 62 questions chosen as independent variables represented the components: individual characteristics, health behaviour and outcomes in the model. Results: Of the independent variables, 24 were significant at the p <= 0.05 level. Low educational level, previously unmet perceived oral treatment need, frequent visiting pattern, perception of worse oral health than one's peers, an external locus of control, and to have received information from one's dental caregiver about a need for oral treatment were all highly significant (p<0.001) variables correlating with high self-perceived oral treatment need. Conclusion: The Andersen behavioural model can be a useful theoretical tool for the study of perceived oral treatment need

Comparison of patients' and providers' severity evaluation of oral mucosal conditions.

BACKGROUND: In dental diseases, significant discrepancies were observed in the oral health-related quality of life evaluation between patients and providers. Few studies have been performed specifically on the impact of oral mucosal diseases on patients' health. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the evaluation of the severity of oral mucosal conditions in providers and patients. METHODS: Patients with an oral mucosal condition were recruited at the oral health care unit of a dermatologic hospital. Severity was evaluated both by the physician and by the patient, using a global severity assessment score on a 5-point scale. The 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile was used to evaluate oral health-related quality of life, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire for psychologic problems, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale for alexithymia (ie, the difficulty in identifying and expressing feelings). RESULTS: Data were complete for 206 patients. The agreement between patients' and providers' evaluation was very low (Cohen \u3ba = 0.18). Severity was particularly underestimated by the physician in patients with alexithymia (43% compared with 25% of patients with no alexithymia) and with psychologic problems (44% vs 25%). LIMITATIONS: Because of the high number of different conditions, and thus the small figures in each group, it was not possible to analyze the concordance between patient and provider in each single condition. CONCLUSION: Even in the severity assessment of his or her own disease, it is plausible that a patient does not provide a simple clinical evaluation, but includes subjective aspects. It is important for the physician to take into account the severity the patient perceives in making treatment decisions, and in evaluating clinical improvement