Evaluation of an oral health promotion program for elders based on a cooperation model between public and private sectors

Hee-Yong Yi; Ki-Jun Yu; Soo-Jin Lee; Min-Ji Jeong; Su-Bin Jeong; Ae-Ran Moon; Bo-Ram Mok; Yeon-Hee Song

doi:10.11149/jkaoh.2014.38.1.41

Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.38(1) > 1057624

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yi, Yu, Lee, Jeong, Jeong, Moon, Mok, and Song: Evaluation of an oral health promotion program for elders based on a cooperation model between public and private sectors

Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2014;38(1):41-49.

Published online: 12 March 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2014.38.1.41

Evaluation of an oral health promotion program for elders based on a cooperation model between public and private sectors

Hee-Yong Yi^1,², Ki-Jun Yu¹, Soo-Jin Lee¹, Min-Ji Jeong¹, Su-Bin Jeong¹, Ae-Ran Moon¹, Bo-Ram Mok¹, Yeon-Hee Song^1,²

¹Appletree Dental Clinic, Bucheon, Korea

²Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding Author: Yeon-Hee Song Appletree Dental Clinic, Samyeong Building 3floor, Simgok-dong, Wonmi-gu, Bucheon 420-822, Korea Tel: +82-32-667-2800 Fax: +82-32-667-2803 E-mail: yhsongchoi@hanmail.net

Received 22 January 2014 Revised 21 March 2014 Accepted 25 March 2014

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a seniors’ oral health promotion program for establishing a cooperation model between public and private sectors.

Methods

This study was carried out targeting the seniors frequenting a community center in the Sosa-gu district of Bucheon-si in the Gyeonggi-do province of South Korea. Data were obtained from self-administered questionnaires or personal interviews with elders after they participated in the oral health promotion program. Their perceived satisfaction with their oral health before and after the oral health program was compared. The data were analyzed by t-tests, ANOVA, paired t-tests, and logistic regression using SPSS to assess the effects of explanatory factors on the seniors’ satisfaction of the oral health promotion program.

Results

In total, 22.7% of participants had a positive idea about the oral health promotion program before their participation. The mean score of change in and difference of satisfaction with oral health tended to increase in each of the following groups: women, aged 80-84 years, number of permanent teeth, full denture wearers, and those who did not require dentures. Satisfaction notably increased 0.4 points in the group of full denture wearers (P<0.05). Moreover, after 1 month, the satisfaction level of the subjects who participated in the oral health promotion program increased 5.2 times (95% CI, 1.04-25.49) compared to dissatisfaction levels. Ultimately, satisfaction with oral health shows a major impact on the satisfaction with an oral health promotion program.

Conclusions

The subjects who received the oral health promotion program responded very positively, but this program needs overall consideration about work processes and further reliable evaluations.

Keywords: Cooperation model, Oral health promotion, Private sectors, Public, Senior citizens

References

1. Statistics Korea. Korea statistical information system (KOSIS), Statistics DB, Aged population by province 2010 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Aug 17]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/gen_etl/start.jsp.

2. Park YA, Jeong SH, Yoon SH, Choi YH, Song KB. Associations between general health and diet habits and oral health among the elderly in Pohang city. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2006; 30:183–192.

3. Lee HO, Kim J. Effects of elders’ oral health beliefs and oral health behaviors on their quality of Life. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2008; 8:57–63.

4. Park JH, Kwon HK, Kim BI, Choi CH, Choi YH. A survey on the oral health condition of institutionalized elderly people resident in free asylum. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2002; 26:555–566.

5. Park JH, Jung SH, Lee GR, Song KB. The impact of tooth loss on oral health related quality of life among the elderly in Seongju, Korea. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2008; 32:63–74.

6. Ekelund R. Dental state and subjective chewing ability of institutionalized elderly people. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998; 17:24–27.

7. Meeuwissen JH, van Waas MA, Meeuwissen R, K yser AF, van’ t Hof MA, Kalk W. Satisfaction with reduced dentition in elderly people. J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22:397–401.

8. Lee GR. The impact of DMFT index on oral health related quality of life in community-dwelling elderly. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2008; 32:396–404.

9. Jung JO, Oh GJ. A study of the relationship between socioeconomic status, oral health behaviors and periodontitis in the elderly Korean population. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2011; 35:57–66.

10. Hujeol PP. Endpoints in periodontal trials: the need for an evidence-based research approach. Periodontal 2000. 2004; 36:196–204.

11. Burt B. Epidemiology of periodontal disease. J Dent Res. 2005; 76:1406–1419.

12. Chen MS, Stone DB. Toothbrushing, flossing, and dental visits on relation to socioeconomic characteristics of White American families. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983; 11:325–332.

13. Ministry of Health & Welfare. Health Plan 2020. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare;2011. p. 320–352.

14. Ministry of Health & Welfare. 2011 Guidelines for oral health programs. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare;2011. p. 1–126.

15. Bucheon City. Bucheon Statistics, Current Statistics DB, Population and household status [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 17]. Available from:. http://stat.bucheon.go.kr/.

16. Bucheon City. Basic Statistics of Bucheon. Bucheon: Bucheon City;2012. p. 1–518.

17. Yeo JY, Jung HS. Determinants of dental screening and unmet dental needs: interaction effect between geographical accessibility and economic affordability. Korean J Health Econ Policy. 2012; 18:109–126.

18. Jang JH, Yoon MS. Associations between perception of dry mouth and pre and post-wearing denture satisfaction in the elderly. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010; 34:636–643.

19. Gerritsen AE, Allen PF, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NH. Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8:126.

20. Bae KH, Kim JB, Jung SH, Lee BJ, Ha JE, Yeo BM, et al. Evaluation of oral health program in health center. Seoul: SNU R&DB Foundation;2010. p. 1–211.

21. OECD. OECD, StatExtract, Health care resources:Total health and social employment (1996-2012) [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 17]. Available from:. http://stats.oecd.org/.

22. Statistics Korea. Korea statistical information system(KOSIS), Statistics DB, Workforce of health center [Internet]. [cited 2013 Aug 17]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/common/meta_onedepth.jsp.

23. Ha JE, Han KS, Kim NH, Jin BH, Kim HD, Paik DI, et al. The improvement of oral health related quality of life by the national senile prosthetic restoration program. J Korean Acad Dent Health. 2009; 22:227–234.

24. Kim YN, Kwon HK. Subjective oral health perception of Korean low socio economic elderly. J Korean Acad Dent Health. 2004; 28:257–265.

25. Ministry of Health & Welfare. 2010 Korea National Oral Health Survey: II. Survey results. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare;2011. p. 116–120.

26. Jeon JE, Chung WG, Kim NH. The reason of unmet dental need related socioeconomic status in Korea: using the 4th Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2012; 36:73–81.

27. Jung YH. Korea health panel’s view on the restricted activity and unmet medical needs. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs Issue & Focus. 2012; 120:1–8.

28. Ministry of health and welfare. 2009 Health and welfare bulletin. Seoul: Ministry of Health and welfare;2010. p. 1–901.

29. OECD. Health at a glance 2007. OECD;2011.

30. Roberts-Thomson KF, Stewart JF. Access to dental care by young South Australian adults. Aust Dent J. 2003; 48:169–174.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the subjects

Characteristics	N (%)
Total	294 (100)
Gender (N=292)
Male	34 (11.6)
Female	258 (88.4)
(yrs, N=294)
60-74	70 (23.8)
75-79	86 (29.3)
80-84	79 (26.9)
>85	59 (20.1)
Whether have health insurance or not (N=293)
Health insurance	246 (83.7)
Medical insurance	26 (8.8)
Noninsurance	1 (0.3)
Non-answer	20 (7.52)
Number of natural permanent teeth (N=292)
<20	157 (53.8)
≥20	135 (46.2)
Systemic disease (N=294)
One or more	256 (87.1)
None	38 (12.9)
Denture (N=293)
Full	88 (29.9)
Partial	70 (23.8)
Needs	15 (5.1)
No needs	120 (40.8)

Table 2.

The change and difference of perception of oral health between at baseline and after 1 month according to subjects’s characteristics (Unit: Mean±SD)

Characteristics	Baseline	P*	After 1 month	P^†	*Difference	P^‡
Gender (N =120)
Male	1.67±0.89	0.422	2.25±0.75	0.171	―0.58±1.38	0.403
Female	1 67±0 89 2.12±0.66	0 422	2 25±0 75 2.17±0.54	0 171 0.372	0 58±1 38 ―0.05±0.54	0 403
Age (yrs, N=120)
60-74	1.78±0.79^a	0.761	2.06±0.62	0.119	―0.28±0.99^a	0.297
75-79	1.90±0.91^a		2.26±0.63	0.054	―0.36±0.99^a
80-84	1.86±0.83^a		2.20±0.53	<0.05	―0.37±0.81^a
>85	1.67±0.80^a		2.05±0.50	0.088	―0.38±0.97^a
Number of natural permanent teeth (N=120)
<20	1.80±0.81	0.837	2.07±0.54	<0.05	―0.26±0.98	0.782
≥20	1.81±0.85		2.24±0.60	<0.05	―0.43±0.86
Denture (N=122)
Full	1.80±0.80^a	0.854	2.03±0.45	0.130	―0.26±0.98^a	0.161
Partial	1.70±0.82^a ^a		2.23±0.61	<0.05	―0.59±1.01^a ^a
Needs	2.17±0.98^a		1.83±0.75	0.465	0.33±1.03^a
No needs	1.83±0.84^a		2.21±0.61	<0.05	―0.38±0.83^a

P* is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05. P

^† is determined by paired samples t-test at α=0.05. P

^‡ is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05.

^a The different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test. *difference = baseline score – after 1 month score.

Table 3.

The change and difference of satisfaction of oral health between at baseline and after 1 month according to subjects’s characteristics

Characteristics	Baseline	P*	After 1 month	P^†	*Difference	P^‡
Gender (N=120)
Male	1.67±0.89	0.438	1.83±0.72	0.166	―0.17±1.12	0.559
Female	1.86±0.81		2.19±0.57	<0.05	―0.32±0.87
Age (yrs, N=120)
60-74	1.75±0.80^a	0.805	2.06±0.62	0.067	―0.31±0.93^a	0.856
75-79	1.94±0.85^a		2.19±0.65	0.118	―0.26±0.89^a
80-84	1.81±0.79^a		2.25±0.55	<0.05	―0.44±0.81^a
>85	1.90±0.89^a		2.05±0.5	0.526	―0.14±1.01^a
Number of natural permanent teeth (N=120)
<20	1.82±0.83	0.730	2.10±0.57	<0.05	―0.28±0.92	0.921
≥20	1.86±0.82		2.20±0.61	<0.05	―0.34±0.88
Denture (N=122)
Full	1.74±0.78^a	0.667	2.11±0.53	<0.05	―0.40±0.95^a	0.643
Partial	1.87±0.92^a		2.09±0.60	0.260	―0.21±0.90^a
Needs	2.00±0.89^a		1.83±0.75	0.695	0.17±0.98^a
No needs	1.86±0.81^a		2.21±0.61	<0.05	―0.35±0.87^a

Values are mean±SD (standard deviation). P* is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05. P

^† is determined by paired samples t-test at α=0.05. P

^‡ is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05.

^a The different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test. *difference = baseline score – after 1 month score.

Table 4.

The change and difference of needs for dentistry between at baseline and after 1 month according to subjects’s characteristics

Characteristics	Baseline	P*	After 1 month	P^†	*Difference	P^‡
Gender (N=120)
Male	2.25±0.75	0.255	2.17±0.84	0.339	0.83±1.17	0.264
Female	1.97±0.80		1.68±0.67	<0.05	0.30±0.75
Age (yrs, N=120)
60-74	1.94±0.76^a	0.948	1.81±0.69	0.379	0.13±0.79^a	0.971
75-79	2.00±0.86^a		1.74±0.73	0.118	0.26±0.89^a
80-84	2.06±0.79^a		1.64±0.72	<0.05	0.42±0.81^a
>85	2.00±0.84^a		1.71±0.64	0.055	0.29±0.64^a
Number of natural permanent teeth (N=120)
<20	1.98±0.83	0.790	1.67±0.70	<0.05	0.31±0.81	0.870
≥20	2.02±0.78		1.80±0.69	<0.05	0.22±0.81
Denture (N=122)
Full	1.51±0.61^a	0.832	1.97±0.79	<0.05	―0.43±0.78^a	0.081
Partial	1.87±0.87^a		1.61±0.72	0.137	0.26±0.81^a
Needs	2.17±0.98^a		2.50±0.55	0.175	―0.33±0.52^b
No needs	2.02±0.78^a		1.84±0.70	0.133	0.17±0.86^a
Values are mean±SD (standard deviation). P* is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05. P^† is determined by paired samples t-test at α=0.05. P^‡ is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05. ^aThe different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test. *difference = baseline score – after 1 month score.

Table 5.

The change and difference of satisfaction of oral health promotion program

Characteristics	After immediately checkup	P*	After 1 month	P^†
Perception of health of whole body (N=117)
Low	2.78±0.08^a	0.144	2.83±0.08a	0.251
Moderate	2.83±0.08^a		2.66±0.09^a
High	2.95±0.04^a		2.75±0.08^a
Perception of oral health (N=119)
Low	2.87±0.39^a	0.273	2.70±0.50^a	0.765
Moderate	2.76±0.56^a		2.79±0.49^a
High	2.94±0.25^a		2.77±0.56^a
Satisfaction of oral health (N=119)
Low	2.86±0.06^a	0.663	2.68±0.07^a	0.337
Moderate	2.81±0.09^a		2.84±0.07^a
High	2.90±0.06^a		2.73±0.11^a
Needs for dentistry (N=119)
Low	2.81±0.53^a	0.438	2.83±0.45^b	<0.05
Moderate	2.91±0.29^a		2.84±0.37^b
High	2.84±0.44^a		2.54±0.65^a
Values are mean±SD (standard deviation).P*, P^†is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05.^a,bThe different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test.

Table 6.

The change and difference of intension of re-participation in program

Characteristics	After immediately checkup	P*	After 1 month	P^†
Perception of health of whole body (N=117)
Low	1.00±0.00^a	0.663	1.06±0.24^a	0.506
Moderate	1.02±0.15^a		1.07±0.26^a
High	1.03±0.16^a		1.13±0.34^a
Perception of oral health (N=119)
Low	1.02±0.14^a	0.615	1.08±0.27^a	0.166
Moderate	1.00±0.00^a		1.03±0.18^a
High	1.03±0.18^a		1.17±0.38^a
Satisfaction of oral health (N=119)
Low	1.00±0.00^a	0.472	1.04±0.20^a	<0.05
Moderate	1.03±0.16^a		1.05±0.23^ab
High	1.03±0.19^a		1.03±0.19^b
Needs for dentistry (N=119)
Low	1.00±0.00^a	0.626	1.17±0.38^b	<0.05
Moderate	1.02±0.15^a		1.00±0.00^a
High	1.03±0.17^a		1.11±0.32^ab
Values are mean±SD (standard deviation).P*, P^†is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05.^a,bThe different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test.

Table 7.

The change and difference of intension of recommendation to others about program

Characteristics	After immediately checkup	P*	After 1 month	P^†
Perception of health of whole body (N=117)
Low	1.00±0.00^a	0.250	1.03±0.17a	0.474
Moderate	1.07±0.26^a		1.07±0.26^a
High	1.03±0.16^a		1.11±0.31^a
Perception of oral health (N =119)
Low	1.02±0.14^a	0.554	1.08±0.27^a	0.125
Moderate	1.06±0.25^a		1.00±0.00^a
High	1.03±0.18^a		1.13±0.35^a
Satisfaction of oral health (N =119)
Low	1.02±0.14^a	0.717	1.04±0.20^a	0.253
Moderate	1.05±0.23^a		1.05±0.23^a
High	1.03±0.19^a		1.14±0.35^a
Needs for dentistry (N =119)
Low	1.00±0.00^a	<0.05	1.17±0.38^b	<0.05
Moderate	1.10±0.30^a		1.00±0.00^a
High	1.00±0.00^a		1.06±0.23^ab
Values are mean±SD (standard deviation).P*, P^†is determined by independent samples t-test or one-way analysis of variance test at α=0.05.^a,bThe different characters shows statistically significant deference between group by one-way analysis of variance and tukey HSD post-hoc test.

Table 8.

Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of explanatory variables for the satisfaction of oral health promotion program, intension of re-participation in program and intension of recommendation to others about program

Explanatory variable	Satisfaction of oral health promotion program			Intension of re-participation in program			Intension of recommendation to others about program
Explanatory variable	aOR	95% CI	P	aOR	95% CI	P	aOR	95% CI	P
Perception of health of whole body Good (reference:Bad)	1.37	0.43-4.40	0.600	1.04	0.22-4.81	0.963	0.59	0.11-3.08	0.528
Satisfaction of oral health Good (reference:Bad)	5.15	1.04-25.49	<0.05	0.30	0.06-1.36	0.117	0.40	0.07-2.15	0.284
Needs for dentistry High (reference:Low)	0.62	0.20-1.93	0.406	1.40	0.16-12.35	0.763	1.12	0.12-10.17	0.920

Adjusted for age, number of natural pigment teeth, perception of health of whole body, satisfaction of oral health, needs for dentistry. Pis determined by logistic regression analysis at α=0.05.

TOOLS

Similar articles