Reflections on oral health inequalities: Theories, pathways and next steps for research priorities

Health inequalities, including those in oral health, are a critical problem of social injustice worldwide, while the COVID-19 pandemic has magnified previously existing inequalities and created new ones. This commentary offers a summary of the main frameworks used in the literature of oral health inequalities, reviews the evidence and discusses the potential role of different pathways/mechanisms to explain inequalities. Research in this area needs now to move from documenting oral health inequalities, towards explaining them, understanding the complex mechanisms underlying their production and reproduction and looking at interventions to tackle them. In particular, the importance of interdisciplinary theory-driven research, intersectionality frameworks and the use of the best available analytical methodologies including qualitative research is discussed. Further research on understanding the role of structural determinants on creating and shaping inequalities in oral health is needed, such as a focus on political economy analysis. The co-design of interventions to reduce oral health inequalities is an area of priority and can highlight the critical role of context and inform decision-making. The evaluation of such interventions needs to consider their public health impact and employ the wider range of methodological tools available rather than focus entirely on the traditional approach, based primarily on randomized controlled trials. Civil society engagement and various advocacy strategies are also necessary to make progress in the field

Unheard Voices on Oral Health: Qualitative Research with Disadvantaged Communities

Objectives: Oral diseases disproportionately affect marginalised groups in society, who are often overlooked or excluded from research. This study aimed to engage with disadvantaged and vulnerable groups across high-and middle-income countries to explore experiences of oral health and views on oral health services. Methods: Five disadvantaged groups were included: homeless adults (Brazil and Nigeria), informal female workers (India), Venezuelan migrants (Colombia), adults from urban ‘slum’ communities (Colombia), and adults from communities with socioeconomic disadvantage (UK and Nigeria). Individual interviews were conducted across five settings (Brazil n=15, Colombia n=41, India n=30, Nigeria n=18, UK n=17). Focus groups were held in two settings (Brazil n=2, UK n=1). Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed, translated into English, and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Themes emerged in relation to how participants defined oral health, its perceived importance, and their experiences of oral disease and dental services. ‘Good’ oral health was generally defined across all settings in relation to having white, straight teeth, and the absence of caries or pain. Many participants described experiences of ‘DIY dentistry’ due to lack of access to oral health services and the negative impact of oral pain on work and family activities. Oral health was regarded as significant in relation to aesthetics, self-esteem, speaking and eating. Both positive and negative experiences of oral health services were reported. The use of traditional treatments for oral problems was prevalent across some settings, and the influence of peers, family and community in disease prevention and treatment was evident. Participants expressed opinions regarding improved access to local, affordable, quality dental services and community advocacy for oral health. Conclusion: Oral health matters to disadvantaged people globally. There is a need to engage with and involve communities in oral research to develop policies to promote oral health, provide access to appropriate services and reduce oral health inequalities. Brief 1 sentence abstract summary: A qualitative study which describes the experiences and opinions of marginalised groups on oral health from across the world. Text for submission acknowledging funding of the study: This study is funded by the NIHR Global Health Group on Oral Health (NIHR 132731)/ NIHR Global Health Research Groups. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Car

Inequidad en los años de vida potencial perdida, por departamentos en colombia 1985-2005

Objetivo Describir las diferencias en los años de vida perdidos en la expectativa de vida al nacer por Departamentos en Colombia, durante el periodo de estudio. Métodos Los datos sobre expectativa de vida al nacer por género, fueron tomados del Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DAÑE) para los periodos: 1985-1990, 1995-2000 y 2000-2005. Los datos sobre el país con la mejor expectativa de vida en el mundo fue tomado de los reportes de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los años de vida perdidos en expectativa de vida (AVPP) fueron estimados a partir de las diferencias relativas entre valores regionales y los mejores valores del mundo para los periodos de estudio. Resultados El número de AVPP tuvo una tendencia a disminuir en ambos géneros durante el periodo de estudio. Sin embargo hubo Departamentos en los cuales los AVPP fueron mayores para mujeres que para hombres en los tres periodos. Adicionalmente, el peor quintil de AVPP tuvo un valor medio de 18,98 ±2,36 AVPP para hombres y 18,45+/-2,43 AVPP para mujeres en 1985-1990; 16,99+/-1,7 AVPP para hombres y 16,01+/1,46 para mujeres en 1995-2000; y 15,99+/-1,34 AVPP para hombres y 14,51 +/-0,96 AVPP para mujeres en 2000-2005. Los valores para el mejor quintil de LLY fueron respectivamente para hombres y mujeres: 7,41+/-0,65; 8,34+/-0,65 en 1985-1990; 7,22+/-0,62 y 8,59+/-0,31 en 1995-2000; y 7,72+/ 0,58 y 8,89+/-0,67 en 2000-2005. Conclusiones Hubo diferencias en la expectativa de vida al nacer entre Departamentos y géneros en los tres periodos estudiados. Hubo disparidad en el numero de AVPP, comparando con el mejor país en el mundo, por Departamentos, durante los periodos de estudio

Housing index, urbanisation level and lifetime prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders : a cross-sectional analysis of the Colombian national mental health survey

Q2Q1Artículo originale019065Objectives To study socioeconomic inequalities in mental health in rural and urban Colombia, a country with a history of internal conflict and large socioeconomic inequalities. Recent survey data are available to study this understudied topic in a middle-income country. Methods Using data from 9656 respondents from the 2015 Colombian Mental Health survey, we investigated the association between lifetime prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders and quality of dwellings and access to public services housing score (HS). We calculated the relative index of inequality (RII) and slope index of inequality (SII) for HS in urban and rural areas, adjusting for potential confounders and mediating factors. Outcomes The lifetime prevalence of anxiety and depression (combined) was 9.6% in urban versus 6.9% in rural areas (p<0.001). HS was not associated with prevalence of anxiety and depression in urban settings, whereas a higher HS (poorer housing quality) was associated with fewer mental disorders in rural areas in both univariate and multivariate models (multivariate RIIurban0.96 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.81); RIIrural0.11 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.32)). In rural areas, the prevalence of mental health problems was 12% points lower in persons living in the poorest quality dwellings than in those living in high-quality dwellings (SII −0.12 (95% CI −0.18 to −0.06)). Interestingly, within rural areas, persons living in ‘populated centres’ (small towns, villages) had a higher lifetime prevalence of any mental health disorder (9.8% (95% CI 6.9 to 13.6)) compared with those living in more isolated, dispersed areas (6.0% (95% CI 4.6 to 7.7)). Interpretation In rural Colombia, those living in the poorest houses and in dispersed areas had a lower prevalence of mental health problems. Further understanding of this phenomenon of a seemingly inverse association of prevalence of mental disorders with poverty and/or urbanisation in rural areas is needed. Particularly, considering the progressive urbanisation process in Colombia, it is important to monitor mental health in populations migrating to the cities

The Lancet Oral Health Series – implications for oral and dental research

No abstract available

Dental attendance and behavioural pathways to adult oral health inequalities.

BACKGROUND: While inequalities in oral health are documented, little is known about the extent to which they are attributable to potentially modifiable factors. We examined the role of behavioural and dental attendance pathways in explaining oral health inequalities among adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS: Using nationally representative data, we analysed inequalities in self-rated oral health and number of natural teeth. Highest educational attainment, equivalised household income and occupational social class were used to derive a latent socioeconomic position (SEP) variable. Pathways were dental attendance and behaviours (smoking and oral hygiene). We used structural equation modelling to test the hypothesis that SEP influences oral health directly and also indirectly via dental attendance and behavioural pathways. RESULTS: Lower SEP was directly associated with fewer natural teeth and worse self-rated oral health (standardised path coefficients, -0.21 (SE=0.01) and -0.10 (SE=0.01), respectively). We also found significant indirect effects via behavioural factors for both outcomes and via dental attendance primarily for self-rated oral health. While the standardised parameters of total effects were similar between the two outcomes, for number of teeth, the estimated effect of SEP was mostly direct while for self-rated oral health, it was almost equally split between direct and indirect effects. CONCLUSION: Reducing inequalities in dental attendance and health behaviours is necessary but not sufficient to tackle socioeconomic inequalities in oral health

The self-reported oral health status and dental attendance of smokers and non-smokers in England

Smoking has been identified as the second greatest risk factor for global death and disability and has impacts on the oral cavity from aesthetic changes to fatal diseases such as oral cancer. The paper presents a secondary analysis of the National Adult Dental Health Survey (2009). The analysis used descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and logistic regression models to report the self-reported oral health status and dental attendance of smokers and non-smokers in England. Of the 9,657 participants, 21% reported they were currently smoking. When compared with smokers; non-smokers were more likely to report ‘good oral health’ (75% versus 57% respectively, p<0.05). Smokers were twice as likely to attend the dentist symptomatically (OR = 2.27, CI = 2.02–2.55) compared with non-smoker regardless the deprivation status. Smokers were more likely to attend symptomatically in the most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.99, CI = 1.57–2.52) and perceive they had poorer oral health (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.42–2.20). The present research is consistent with earlier sub-national research and should be considered when planning early diagnosis and management strategies for smoking-related conditions, considering the potential impact dental teams might have on smoking rates

Plan de seguro de salud: factor que más contribuye a las desigualdades en la mortalidad por COVID-19 en Colombia

Objetivo. Cuantificar las desigualdades socioeconómicas en la mortalidad por COVID-19 en Colombia y evaluar en qué medida el tipo de seguro de salud, la carga de enfermedades concomitantes, la zona de residencia y el origen étnico explican estas desigualdades. Métodos. Se analizaron los datos de una cohorte retrospectiva de casos de COVID-19. Se estimó el índice relativo de desigualdad (IRD) y el índice de desigualdad basado en la pendiente (IDP) utilizando modelos de supervivencia con todos los participantes, y estratificándolos por edad y sexo. El porcentaje de reducción del IRD y el IDP se calculó después de ajustar con respecto a factores que podrían ser relevantes. Resultados. Se pusieron en evidencia desigualdades notables en toda la cohorte y en los subgrupos (edad y sexo). Las desigualdades fueron mayores en los adultos más jóvenes y disminuyeron de manera gradual con la edad, pasando de un IRD de 5,65 (intervalo de confianza de 95% [IC 95%] = 3,25-9,82) en los participantes menores de 25 años a un IRD de 1,49 (IC 95% = 1,41-1,58) en los mayores de 65 años. El tipo de seguro de salud fue el factor más importante, al cual se atribuyó 20% de las desigualdades relativas y 59% de las absolutas. Conclusiones. La mortalidad por COVID-19 en Colombia presenta importantes desigualdades socioeconómicas. El seguro de salud aparece como el factor que mQ1Q1Objectives. To quantify socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 mortality in Colombia and to assess the extent to which type of health insurance, comorbidity burden, area of residence, and ethnicity account for such inequalities. Methods. We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of COVID-19 cases. We estimated the relative and slope indices of inequality (RII and SII) using survival models for all participants and stratified them by age and gender. We calculated the percentage reduction in RII and SII after adjustment for potentially relevant factors. Results. We identified significant inequalities for the whole cohort and by subgroups (age and gender). Inequalities were higher among younger adults and gradually decreased with age, going from RII of 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.25, 9.82) in participants younger than 25 years to RII of 1.49 (95% CI = 1.41, 1.58) in those aged 65 years and older. Type of health insurance was the most important factor, accounting for 20% and 59% of the relative and absolute inequalities, respectively. Conclusions. Significant socioeconomic inequalities exist in COVID-19 mortality in Colombia. Health insurance appears to be the main contributor to those inequalities, posing challenges for the design of public health strategies.Revista Internacional - IndexadaS

Austin Powers bites back: a cross sectional comparison of US and English national oral health surveys

Objective: To compare oral health in the US and England and to assess levels of educational and income related oral health inequalities between both countries. Design: Cross sectional analysis of US and English national surveys. Setting: Non-institutionalised adults living in their own homes. Participants: Oral health measures and socioeconomic indicators were assessed in nationally representative samples: the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 for England, and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-08. Adults aged ≥25 years were included in analyses with samples of 8719 (England) and 9786 (US) for analyses by education, and 7184 (England) and 9094 (US) for analyses by income. Main outcome measures Number of missing teeth, self rated oral health, and oral impacts on daily life were outcomes. Educational attainment and household income were used as socioeconomic indicators. Age standardised estimates of oral health were compared between countries and across educational and income groups. Regression models were fitted, and relative and absolute inequalities were measured using the relative index of inequality (RII) and the slope index of inequality (SII). Results: The mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the US (7.31 (standard error 0.15)) than in England (6.97 (0.09)), while oral impacts were higher in England. There was evidence of significant social gradients in oral health in both countries, although differences in oral health by socioeconomic position varied according to the oral health measure used. Consistently higher RII and SII values were found in the US than in England, particularly for self rated oral health. RII estimates for self rated oral health by education were 3.67 (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.17) in the US and 1.83 (1.59 to 2.11) in England. In turn, SII values were 42.55 (38.14 to 46.96) in the US and 18.43 (14.01 to 22.85) in England. Conclusions: The oral health of US citizens is not better than the English, and there are consistently wider educational and income oral health inequalities in the US compared with England

Austin Powers bites back: a cross sectional comparison of US and English national oral health surveys

Objective: To compare oral health in the US and England and to assess levels of educational and income related oral health inequalities between both countries. Design: Cross sectional analysis of US and English national surveys. Setting: Non-institutionalised adults living in their own homes. Participants: Oral health measures and socioeconomic indicators were assessed in nationally representative samples: the Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 for England, and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-08. Adults aged ≥25 years were included in analyses with samples of 8719 (England) and 9786 (US) for analyses by education, and 7184 (England) and 9094 (US) for analyses by income. Main outcome measures Number of missing teeth, self rated oral health, and oral impacts on daily life were outcomes. Educational attainment and household income were used as socioeconomic indicators. Age standardised estimates of oral health were compared between countries and across educational and income groups. Regression models were fitted, and relative and absolute inequalities were measured using the relative index of inequality (RII) and the slope index of inequality (SII). Results: The mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the US (7.31 (standard error 0.15)) than in England (6.97 (0.09)), while oral impacts were higher in England. There was evidence of significant social gradients in oral health in both countries, although differences in oral health by socioeconomic position varied according to the oral health measure used. Consistently higher RII and SII values were found in the US than in England, particularly for self rated oral health. RII estimates for self rated oral health by education were 3.67 (95% confidence interval 3.23 to 4.17) in the US and 1.83 (1.59 to 2.11) in England. In turn, SII values were 42.55 (38.14 to 46.96) in the US and 18.43 (14.01 to 22.85) in England. Conclusions: The oral health of US citizens is not better than the English, and there are consistently wider educational and income oral health inequalities in the US compared with England