Cargando…
Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties
BACKGROUND: This article aims to provide a description of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties of the tools of oral and dental health literacy. METHODS: Two authors in this study conducted electronic searches in the Medline (via PubMed), and Embase databases to find relevant articles fr...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32620108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01170-y |
_version_ | 1783553745780473856 |
---|---|
author | Ghaffari, Mohtasham Rakhshanderou, Sakineh Ramezankhani, Ali Mehrabi, Yadollah Safari-Moradabadi, Ali |
author_facet | Ghaffari, Mohtasham Rakhshanderou, Sakineh Ramezankhani, Ali Mehrabi, Yadollah Safari-Moradabadi, Ali |
author_sort | Ghaffari, Mohtasham |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This article aims to provide a description of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties of the tools of oral and dental health literacy. METHODS: Two authors in this study conducted electronic searches in the Medline (via PubMed), and Embase databases to find relevant articles from 1990 to present day. Evaluation of the tools was carried out in two parts; general evaluation of the tools using skills introduced by Sørensen et al., and qualitative assessment of psychometric properties using COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: After reviewing 1839 articles on oral and dental health literacy and evaluating 33 full text articles for eligibility, 21 articles entered the study. The sample size varied from 20 to 1405 subjects and the items of each tool ranged from 11 to 99 items. Of the 21 tools examined, 16 tools were evaluated for word recognition. For the studies examined, the evaluation of COSMIN scores was often fair or good. Of the 21 tools examined, 9 tools at least in one dimension were in the category of “poor”, 19 tools were in the category of “fair”, 20 tools were in the category of “good”, and 4 tools were in the category of “excellent” in at least one dimension. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that some aspects of oral and dental health literacy are being ignored in the existing tools. Therefore, the authors of present study emphasize on the necessity to design and develop a comprehensive tool and take into account two characteristics of simplicity and briefness for international use. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7333397 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73333972020-07-06 Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties Ghaffari, Mohtasham Rakhshanderou, Sakineh Ramezankhani, Ali Mehrabi, Yadollah Safari-Moradabadi, Ali BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: This article aims to provide a description of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties of the tools of oral and dental health literacy. METHODS: Two authors in this study conducted electronic searches in the Medline (via PubMed), and Embase databases to find relevant articles from 1990 to present day. Evaluation of the tools was carried out in two parts; general evaluation of the tools using skills introduced by Sørensen et al., and qualitative assessment of psychometric properties using COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: After reviewing 1839 articles on oral and dental health literacy and evaluating 33 full text articles for eligibility, 21 articles entered the study. The sample size varied from 20 to 1405 subjects and the items of each tool ranged from 11 to 99 items. Of the 21 tools examined, 16 tools were evaluated for word recognition. For the studies examined, the evaluation of COSMIN scores was often fair or good. Of the 21 tools examined, 9 tools at least in one dimension were in the category of “poor”, 19 tools were in the category of “fair”, 20 tools were in the category of “good”, and 4 tools were in the category of “excellent” in at least one dimension. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that some aspects of oral and dental health literacy are being ignored in the existing tools. Therefore, the authors of present study emphasize on the necessity to design and develop a comprehensive tool and take into account two characteristics of simplicity and briefness for international use. BioMed Central 2020-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7333397/ /pubmed/32620108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01170-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ghaffari, Mohtasham Rakhshanderou, Sakineh Ramezankhani, Ali Mehrabi, Yadollah Safari-Moradabadi, Ali Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title | Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title_full | Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title_fullStr | Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title_short | Systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
title_sort | systematic review of the tools of oral and dental health literacy: assessment of conceptual dimensions and psychometric properties |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32620108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01170-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghaffarimohtasham systematicreviewofthetoolsoforalanddentalhealthliteracyassessmentofconceptualdimensionsandpsychometricproperties AT rakhshanderousakineh systematicreviewofthetoolsoforalanddentalhealthliteracyassessmentofconceptualdimensionsandpsychometricproperties AT ramezankhaniali systematicreviewofthetoolsoforalanddentalhealthliteracyassessmentofconceptualdimensionsandpsychometricproperties AT mehrabiyadollah systematicreviewofthetoolsoforalanddentalhealthliteracyassessmentofconceptualdimensionsandpsychometricproperties AT safarimoradabadiali systematicreviewofthetoolsoforalanddentalhealthliteracyassessmentofconceptualdimensionsandpsychometricproperties |