Open Access

Assessing the validity and reliability of the Malagasy version of Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP): a cross-sectional study

BioPsychoSocial MedicineThe official journal of the Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Medicine201711:2

DOI: 10.1186/s13030-016-0087-z

Received: 21 September 2016

Accepted: 15 December 2016

Published: 2 February 2017

Abstract

Background

Evaluating health needs includes measures of the impact of state of health on the quality of life. This entails evaluating the psychosocial aspects of health. To achieve this, several tools for measuring the quality of life related to oral health have been developed. However, it is vital to evaluate the psychometric properties of these tools so they can be used in a new context and on a new population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Malagasy version of a questionnaire for studying the impacts of oral-dental health on daily activities (Oral Impacts on Daily Performance), and analyse the interrelations between the scores obtained and the oral health indicators.

Method

A cross-sectional study was performed for the transcultural adaptation of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance questionnaire forward translated and back-translated from English to Malagasy and from Malagasy to English, respectively. The psychometric characteristics of the Malagasy version of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance were then evaluated in terms of internal reliability, test-retest, and construct, criteria and discriminant validity. Four hundred and six adults responded in face-to-face interviews to the Malagasy version of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance questionnaire.

Results

Nearly 74% of the participants indicated impacts of their oral health on their performance in their daily lives during the 6 months prior to the survey. The activities most affected were: “smiling”, “eating” and “sleeping and relaxing”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87. The construct validity was demonstrated by a significant association between the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance scores and the subjective evaluation of oral health (p <0.001). Discriminant validity was demonstrated by the fact that the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance scores were significantly higher in subjects with more than ten missing teeth, compared to those with fewer than ten missing teeth (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The Malagasy version of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance index is a valid and reliable measure for use in Malagasy adults over 55 years old.

Keywords

Oral Impacts on Daily Performance - OIDP Malagasy Prevalence Reliability Validity

Background

The measure of health related quality of life has increased considerably over the last few decades, and it is currently accepted as an essential element in investigations in oral health, especially to acquire characteristics of a non-clinical nature and felt by the patients. It entails evaluating the psychosocial aspects of health. Indeed, oral health problems can have impacts on the daily activities of patients. Thus a certain number of tools for measuring the quality of life related to oral health, such as the Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), have been developed [1]. The Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) is an international socio-dental indicator of the quality of life related to oral health, commonly used to evaluate the impacts of oral health conditions on the capacities of individuals to perform daily activities [2]. The OIDP is a generic measurement instrument developed by Adulyanon et al. in 1996 [3] and then adapted in several countries (Greece, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uganda, Norway, France, Iran, Japan, Spain, Korea, Sweden, Bosnia-Herzegovina, India, Chili, Nigeria, Croatia) [419] where its psychometric properties were tested and deemed adequate, valid and reliable by cross-sectional studies. OIDP can be used in different age groups of people, in separated or in only one studies. It has been shown to be applicable to elderly people in Tanzania [6] and Bosnia [15], for children and adolescent in France [9], Uganda [7] and Nigeria [18]. A version for children is available, the Child-OIDP (C-OIDP).

Results from rare surveys conducted in Madagascar showed high level of oral diseases within the population, and particularly early tooth loss within adults aged 35 years old and above. Most of time, these oral diseases are left untreated [20]. Total edentelousness prevalence among 65 years old Malagasy people is high compared to that found in some African countries [21].

Like in many countries, Madagascar knew these two past decades the growing ageing populations. In this context and in order to oral health service planning for this age group, the OIDP index is worthy of consideration because of its adaptation for use in oral health needs assessment.

In Madagascar, there is no such questionnaire validated for use with the adult population, which constitute barriers to the development of this kind of research on population. The OIDP has never been adapted for Madagascar.

Prior to using a new measurement scale in a new context and new group of population, it was important to re-evaluate its psychometric properties.

The objectives of this study were to develop and test the reliability and validity of a Malagasy version of the OIDP questionnaire on a sample of Malagasy elderly adults.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. According to statistics, in 2012, nearly 35% of adults in Madagascar were illiterate. Therefore the face-to-face interview method was applied in this study for those respondents unable to complete the questionnaire themselves. The OIDP questionnaire included 8 items, distributed in three dimensions: physical (03 items), psychological (03 items) and social (02 items) performance. It evaluated the degree to which the daily life of a person was negatively affected by their state of oral health.

The OIDP posed questions on the difficulties of performing eight daily activities (eating, speaking, tooth-brushing, sleeping, controlling emotions, smiling, working, and appreciating social contacts) related to oral health. The questionnaire was organized in two parts: in the first part, the respondents were asked to list the dental problems that they had to cope with during the previous six months. If the respondent expressed an impact on one of these activities, they had to indicate the severity and frequency of the impact by using scores from 1 to 3 for each one. The “impact” was recorded immediately the subject expressed having had a problem in one of the daily activities mentioned above. If no impact was perceived, the activity was assigned a “zero” score.

Recruitment of the respondents

The study population was composed of adults aged 55 years old or older. Recruitment was subject to the consent of the subjects to participate in the study.

Were included in the study people aged 55 years and over, with the ability to answer questions directly.

The elderly suffering from language disorder, hearing, mental handicap of depression type or relational difficulties were excluded.

The study was performed in the capital city, Antananarivo and its suburbs.

The validation process consisted of three steps: translation; qualitative validation including all the pre-tests and test-retests; and quantitative validation steps which included different internal and external reliability and validity tests, and construct, criterion and discriminant tests.

Forward translation and back-translation process

The OIDP questionnaire was first translated from English to Malagasy by two native bilingual persons, one a dentist and the other a linguist. The translators came up against several difficulties in expressing the concept of quality of life related to oral health in the Malagasy context. A committee of experts composed of translators and authors discussed the problematic points of the translation in order to reach consensus. A synthesis of the two translations was established to obtain a single preliminary version in Malagasy. The latter was pre-tested on 20 adult subjects. After each interview, a discussion with the respondents was held to check whether the phrasing, vocabulary and method of administering the questionnaire were pertinent and whether difficulties existed in understanding the items. Following this pre-test, minor modifications were made as certain words required dialectic equivalences. The finalised version was then retranslated into English by two new translators in conformity with the forward translation back-translation method [22, 23] to verify whether the Malagasy version correctly expressed the same content as the items of the original questionnaire. Minimal differences in the back-translation were discussed by a committee of experts. Several modifications were made to the wording of the phrases to match Malagasy conceptions and a penultimate version of the questionnaire was obtained. This version was then tested and retested 15 days afterwards, with about 60 subjects that did not take part in the pre-test or belong to the final study population, in view to evaluating the reproducibility, stability of the responses and the validity of the content.

Validation of the Malagasy version of the questionnaire

This step involved the participation of 406 adults.

Before administering the questionnaire, a clinical examination was performed by two calibrated dentists and the evaluation of oral health was carried out on the basis of indicators recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) [24]. The aim was to determine the number of natural teeth in the mouth, prosthesis use and requirements, and to describe the state of periodontal health.

Data analysis

The data permitted calculating a score for each activity and a global score. The OIDP scores were expressed by the sum of the different performance scores (severity score × frequency score) divided by the maximum possible global score, then multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage score. The global score could range from 0 to 72; it was then divided by 72 and then multiplied by 100. Thus the final score of the questionnaire varied from 0 to 100. The highest OIDP scores expressed a lower quality of life.

The analysis was performed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 18.0 for Windows. The threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.05.

The face validity and content validity were tested during a pre-test.

The reproducibility of the responses to the Malagasy version of the OIDP was evaluated during the test-retest by Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) where the intra-individual and the inter-individual variations divided by the total variation were expressed as a ratio between 0 and 1. It is generally accepted that a coefficient at least equal to 0.7 is required to conclude on acceptable test-retest reproducibility.

Evaluation of the validity of the questionnaire

The descriptive analysis of the scores of the items was carried out first after which the external validity was evaluated by the strength of the correlation between the positive measures. The internal consistency reliability of the items was evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha if the items were eliminated. A coefficient larger than 0.70 indicated acceptable reliability [25].

Since the OIDP scores were not normally distributed, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney nonparametric tests were used to evaluate the construct validity. As no gold standard was available, it was difficult to establish the criterion validity.

Factor analyses including confirmatory factor analysis was performed based on the three dimensions of OIDP.

It is commonly agreed that tooth loss, in most cases is a consequence of oral diseases, and affects Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). In this scope, the study was aimed to discriminate groups with reported dental pain in one hand and between subjects having or not more than ten missing and not replaced teeth in other hand.

Results

Four hundred and six people out of the 430 contacted accepted to participate in the study, i.e. a response rate of 94.5%.

The characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1

Table 1

characteristics of the study population

Characteristics

 

Number

Percent

Gender

Male

178

43.8

Female

228

56.2

Age group

55–60 years old

285

70.3

61–64 years old

29

13.9

65–70 years old

13

6.2

71 years and older

20

9.8

Social status

Living alone

121

30.2

Lives in couple

254

63.02

Education level

Never been at school

28

6.9

Unfinished primary school

72

17.8

Unfinished secondary school

66

16.3

A finished secondary school

81

20.0

High school, university

92

22.8

Do not know

9

0.1

Do you smoke

Yes

89

21.9

The average age was 60.89 years with a standard deviation 7.56. There were slightly more women (56.2%) than men. 63.02% of the respondents lived in couples. Slightly more than half of them had stopped their education at secondary school (51.4%). The prevalence of tobacco consumption was 21.9%.

Oral health status

The average Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth (DMFT) was 16.51 with a standard deviation of 8.88 and only 2.8% of the study population had no caries. The index was dominated by the Missing Teeth (MT) component for missing teeth of 11.94 (9.09). Total edentulousness of both mandibles was recorded in 9% of subjects and 46.9% had more than 10 missing teeth. Nearly two thirds required dental prosthetics. More than one third of the respondents said that they were handicapped by dental pain 6 months prior to the survey (Table 2).
Table 2

Percentage distribution of clinical status in malagasy eldery subjects (n = 209)

Clinical state

Categories

Indices Mean (SD)

Mean teeth number

Tooth decay (DT)

3.58 (3.90)

Missing teeth (MT)

11.94 (9.09)

Filled teeth (FT)

0.99 (2.57)

DMFT

16.51 (8.88)

Denture status

Both edentulous

N (%)

30 (8.9)

Upper edentulous

41 (10.2)

Lower edentulous

23 (5.7)

Number of natural teeth

0

18 (7.7)

1–10

106 (50.7)

11–20

51 (24.4)

21 and more

36 (17.2)

Prosthetics needs reported

No need

103 (25.4)

In one jaw

53 (13.2)

In both jaw

246 (61.2)

Perceived dental pain

No pain

227 (56.3)

Moderate pain

115 (28.5)

Acute pain

61 (15.1)

Perceived oral health status

Healthy

162 (40.2)

Poor oral health

241 (59.8)

Impacts of the state of oral health on the quality of daily life

Table 3 shows that 6 months prior to the survey, psychological (46.43%) and physical (45.06%) performance were the areas subject to the greatest impacts of the state of oral health. Nearly 74% of the respondents reported at least one impact and the daily activities most affected were “smiling”, “eating” and “sleeping, relaxing”, for 61.8, 59.8 and 40.0%, respectively. All the other activities were affected at levels between 37 and 39%.
Table 3

Percentage distribution (percentage of adults affected less than once a month or more) and mean frequency scores (SD) for the eight OIDP items and the OIDP ADD and OIDP SC scores

Affected:

Yes N (%)

Mean (SD)

Physical performances (45.06%)

 1. Eating and enjoying food

241 (59.8)

1.93 (2.02)

 2. Speaking and pronouncing clearly

152 (37.7)

1.24 (1.85)

 3. Cleaning teeth

152 (37.7)

1.07 (1.68)

Psychological performances (46.43%)

 4. Sleeping and relaxing

161 (40.0)

1.00 (1.49)

 5. Smiling, laughing

154 (61.8)

1.23 (1.81)

 6. Maintaing usual emotional status without being irritable

151 (37.5)

0.92 (1.46)

Social performances (37.8%)

 7. Carrying out major work or social role

157 (38.9)

0.86 (1.32)

 8. Enjoying contact with people

148 (36.7)

0.90 (1.41)

OIDP SC total scores

298 (73.9)

3.27 (2.95)

OIDP ADD scores

-

9.14 (9.55)

Reliability tests of the Malagasy OIDP

During the test retest, the Malagasy OIDP presented an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.895 with a Confidence Interval (CI) of 95% (0.878–0.910) at p <0.001. In this study, we did not find any significant association between the OIDP scores according to (as a function of) gender and age (p > 0.05).

The inter-item correlation coefficients of the Malagasy OIDP ranged from r = 0.37 (relation between the problem of tooth cleaning and eating) at r = 0.67 (relation between smiling and speaking). There was no negative value (Table 4).
Table 4

Reliability analysis of OIDP index for Malagasy participants: OIDP items Correlation matrix (1–8)

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. Eating

1,00

       

2. Speaking

0.484**

1,00

      

3. Cleaning teeth

0.370**

0.470**

1,00

     

4. Sleeping and relaxing

0.489**

0.392**

0.456**

1

    

5. Smiling, laughing

0.504**

0.673**

0.401**

0.398**

1

   

6. Maintaining usual emotional status

0.484**

0.499**

0.465**

0.629**

0.487**

1

  

7. Carrying out major work

0.466**

0.403**

0.424**

0.582**

0.480**

0.666**

1

 

8. Enjoying contact with people

0.399**

0.450**

0.389**

0.397**

0.555**

0.560**

0.542**

1

**p <0.001

Table 5 shows the results of the internal reliability test with a Cronbach alpha of 0.87. Eliminating the different items did not lead to any increase in this value.
Table 5

Analysis of interne coherence of OIDP items: complete correlation of corrected items, Cronbach’s alpha if items deleted. Reliability analysis: Corrected item-total correlations

Performances

Corrected item-total correlation

Cronbach’s alpha if items deleted

Eating

0.610

0.86

Speaking and pronouncing clearly

0.657

0.85

Cleaning teeth

0.560

0.86

Sleeping and relaxing

0.631

0.86

Smiling, laughthing

0.681

0.85

Carring work

0.724

0.85

Maintaining emotional status

0.676

0.85

Enjoying contact with other people

0.624

0.86

Global Cronbach’alpha for the 8 items : 0.876

  
The results of the construct and criterion validation are presented in Table 6. The problems caused by the absence or not of teeth felt by the respondents matched with the mean scores of the OIDP (p < 0.001).
Table 6

Construct validity and criterion validity of OIDP questionnaire scores in relation with clinical measures on the sample (n = 403)

Variables

Categories

N (%)

Score OIDP

percentiles

p

Prosthetics needs reported

  

Kruskal Wallis

  

Khi2 = 21.96

[0,0-2,0-2,0]

<0.001

No need

103 (23.6)

27.91

[0,0-0,0-1,0]

<0.001

on 01 maxillary

53 (13.02)

2.19

[0,0-0,0-0,0]

0.134

on 02 maxillaries

246 (61.00)

34.02

[0,0-1,0-1,0]

<0.001

Dental pain reported

  

Mann & Whitney

  

0.59 (0.739)

[0,0-0,0-1,0]

<0.001

No pain

227 (56.3)

12.18 (14.35)

[0,0-1,0-1,0]

 

Medium dental pain

115 (28.5)

26.15 (17.92)

[0,0-0,0-1,0]

 

Perceived difficulty to eat

  

Mann & Whitney

  

0.60 (0.49)

 

<0.001

No difficulty to eat

162 (40.2)

   

Poor oral health

241 (59.8)

 

[0,0-1,0-1,0]

 
The factor analysis assessment results showed that KMO value, 0.698, was acceptable in the present study. The results showed that the first dimension (physical performances) explained 80.32% of variances (Table 7).
Table 7

Factor analysis (principal component analysis) with VARIMAX rotation

Dimension of OIDP

Mean

SD

Number

Physical performances

4,24

4,409

403

Psychological performances

3,14

3,894

403

Social performances

1,75

2,402

403

Indice KMO et test de Bartlett

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling precision measure.

,698

Test de sphéricité de Bartlett

Khi2 approximated

672,428

ddl

3

Signification de Bartlett

,000

Factors

Eigenvalues variables explained

Total

% variance

% cumulated

1

2.410

80.326

80.326

2

0.394

13.134

93.459

3

0.196

6.541

100.000

 

Extraction Sommes des carrés des facteurs retenus

Total

% de la variance

% cumulés

1

2.410

80.326

80.326

2

   

3

   

Méthode d’extraction : Analyse en composantes principals (ACP)

Regarding the criterion validity test, the statistical significance (p <0.001) was observed for the comparison of the OIDP scores between the different categories of self-declared state of oral health (perceived pain, difficulty in eating). As for the construct validity, the scores of individuals who perceived needs for prosthetic care were much higher than those who thought they had no need of it (p <0.001).

Discriminant validity

As shown in Table 8 significant differences were found between groups having or not reported dental pain and in Table 9, significant differences were observed between the group with more than 10 missing teeth (MT > 10) and that with MT < 10. The participants with MT > 10 were 4.10 times (2.674–6.299) and 1.85 times (1.217–2.812) more numerous in reporting emotional, irritability and eating difficulties than the MT < 10 group.
Table 8

Discriminant validity: percentage of distribution: (%) number and Odds ratio of simple scores of OIDP (SC) according to dental pain

Affected:

No Dental pain N (%)

Dental pain N (%)

OR (95% IC)

p*

1. Eating and enjoying

84 (37.0)

157 (89.2)

14,067 [8.140–24.310]

0.000

2. Speaking and pronouncing clearly

68 (30.0)

84 (47.7)

2.135 [1.417–3.317]

0.000

3. Cleaning teeth

71 (31.3)

81 (46.0)

1.873 [1.246–2.818]

0.002

4. Sleeping and relaxing

36 (15.9)

125 (71.0)

13.004 [8.026–21.089]

0.000

5. Smiling, laughing

63 (27.8)

91 (51.7)

2.787 [1.841–4.218]

0.000

6. Maintaining usual emotional status without being irritable

43 (18.9)

108 (61.4)

6.796 [4.335–10.656]

0.000

7. Carrying out major work or social role

40 (17.6)

117 (66.5)

9.271 [5.834–14.732]

0.000

8. Enjoying contact with people

51 (22.5)

97 (55.1)

4.237 [2.755–6.517]

0.000

Table 9

Discriminant validity: percentage of distribution: (%) number and Odds ratio of simple scores of OIDP (SC) according to number of missing teeth (MT)

Affected:

MT < 10 N (%)

MT > 10 N (%)

OR (95% IC)

p

1. Eating and enjoying

132 (54.1)

109 (68.6)

1.850 (1.217–2.812)

0.003

2. Speaking and pronouncing clearly

66 (27.0)

86 (54.1)

3.177 (2.086–4.840)

0.000

3. Cleaning teeth

73 (29.9)

79 (49.7)

2.313 (1.528–3.501)

0.000

4. Sleeping and relaxing

81 (33.2)

80 (50.3)

2.038 (1.353–3.069)

0.000

5. Smiling, laughing

62 (25.4)

92 (57.9)

4.031 (2.630–6.177)

0.000

6. Maintaining usual emotional status without being irritable

60 (24.6)

91 (57.2)

4.104 (2.674–6.299)

0.000

7. Carrying out major work or social role

70 (44.6)

87 (55.4)

3.004 (1.978–4.561)

0.000

8. Enjoying contact with people

67 (27.5)

81 (50.9)

2.743 (1.804–4.172)

0.000

Discussion

This is the first study to have evaluated oral health quality of life using a Malagasy version of the OIDP questionnaire. The translation did not come up against major difficulties apart from the cultural adjustment of terms. The comparison between the first translation and the back-translation did not reveal differences in content. The validity of the content was also established by asking the participants whether they understood the questions in the questionnaire. The size of the sample was not calculated but was large enough to validate the questionnaire for which a minimum of between 50 and 100 subjects is recommended by Altman [26] and between 100 and 200 subjects by Stewart A et al. [1].

The prevalence of negative impacts of oral health was high for this study population. Smiling and eating were the activities most affected by negative impacts. The “eating” item was subject to the greatest impact, as reported for adults in the literature [8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19] while, the high frequency of difficulties in relaxing and sleeping can be explained by the dental pain described by this study population.

In this study, missing teeth were not replaced despite the fact that two third of the study population presented needs in dental prosthetics, and it was found that caries were also left untreated; the D-T component of the DMFT was 3.58.

Dental health services in developing countries are very limited. Palliative care is not given priority due to its high cost and is often limited to emergency treatment such as the extraction of teeth. Periodontal diseases are frequent [27, 28].

Kaiser recommends values of greater than 0,05 as acceptable. In the present study analysis, the KMO value is 0,698. Bartlett’s measure shows a highly appropriate p value of 0,000 [29].

As with Ostberg AL et al., 2008, in Swedish, we did not find a significant association between OIDP scores, gender, age group [8], or level of education, contrary to the study by Montero et al., in Spain, where the differences between genders were reported with women being more affected [12]. When evaluating OIDP reliability by the test retest, which focused on the reproducibility of the values of items when the same subjects responded to the questionnaire twice, the coefficient of correlation was acceptable, higher than 0.7 with a CI of 95% not including the value 1 and p < 0.001.

All the inter-item correlations were positive, thus demonstrating good internal consistency and good homogeneity of the items. The values were not high enough to suspect redundancy of responses.

With respect to reliability, the Cronbach alpha higher than 0.80 found in this study was the same as that of J. Eric et al. in 2011, and of Lawal et al. in Nigeria in 2013, indicating the good internal consistency of the Malagasy OIDP [15, 18]. Indeed, Nunnaly and Bernstein suggested that an alpha of 0.70 to 0.90 indicates good internal consistency [30] and Terwee et al., proposed values between 0.70 and 0.95 [31].

The alpha value found in this study was even higher than those of previous studies: Dorri M et al. in Iran, α = 0.79; Naito M et al. in Japan, α = 0.77 and Purohit et al. in India, α = 0.70 [10, 11, 16].

In line with our observations many authors have tested the internal consistency of the OIDP with the Cronbach alpha, but reserves have been expressed regarding the pertinence of this coefficient which can vary according to the number of items on a scale [25].

The validity of the construct and criteria was evaluated by studying the relation between the OIDP scores and the subjective measures (self-reported dental pain, perceived need for prosthetic treatment). The method of only taking into account subjective measures without clinical measures was also employed when validating the Greek OIDP [4]. Indeed, some authors have argued that clinical indicators measure the state of health whereas studying quality of life requires indicators that evaluate psychosocial aspects that can only be expressed subjectively. In this study, the relation between OIDP scores and subjective measures was positively significant and in the direction expected. For example, the worse the state of oral health, the higher the mean OIDP scores were. This means that the construct validity of the Malagasy OIDP was good. Similarly to all the previous validations carried out in other countries, the results of this study showed that the internal reliability test was successful as nearly all the values of the inter-item correlations were above the recommended minimum of 0.20 [25]. The results confirmed the excellent quality of the OIDP for evaluating the impacts of state of oral health on the performance of daily activities.

The Malagasy version of the OIDP for adults was capable of distinguishing the impacts of reported dental pain or not between groups and poor dentition between the group with more than 10 missing teeth and that with fewer missing teeth, and the differences were significantly significant. A higher OIDP score was linked to having 10 or more missing teeth. The same results were obtained in a study carried out on elderly persons in Sweden [14].

The subjects that complained most of positive impacts effectively corresponded to those identified by the clinical examination as having the most absent teeth and this in accordance with the systematic review and meta analysis conducted by Gerritsen et al., which found that subjects with fewer than 10 teeth were twice as likely to report an impact compared with subjects having 21–32 teeth; subject with 11–20 teeth were 1.5 times more likely to report an impact. Moreover, the review indicates that not only number, but also location and distribution of missing teeth affect the severity of OHQoL impairment [32].

Moreover, in this study the F-T component of DMFT showed a nearly null value. The study population had also reported dental pain on the remaining teeth and this is a major problem for these still in activities adults aged 55 to 60 year old which represented two third of the study people.

The limitations of this study concern in particular the problem of seeing the respondents again after they had benefited from treatments to evaluate the reactivity of the questionnaire, by comparing the self-evaluation of the impacts of state of oral health before and after treatment.

Conclusion

The Malagasy version of the OIDP presented satisfactory psychometric properties. It appeared reliable and valid for use on adult and elderly persons in Madagascar. This enables the use of this instrument in future studies to assess the impact of oral health on Malagasy adults’ quality of life.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

DMFT: 

Decayed, missed, filled teeth

DT: 

Decayed teeth

FT: 

Filled teeth

ICC: 

Intra-class correlation coefficients

MT: 

Missing teeth

OHRQoL: 

Oral health related quality of life

OIDP: 

Oral impacts on daily performance

SPSS: 

Statistical package for social sciences

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support of Doctoral Department of University of Mahajanga, particularly the Head officer and at the same time my supervisor Noeline Razanamihaja who encouraged me to pursue this topic and spent extra time helping me to achieve a clearer structure.

I am also grateful to all the persons who helped us to carry out this work.

Funding

This research is supported with authors’ own funds.

Availability of data and materials

Row data in SPSS are available and the OIDP malagasy version used in the study.

Authors’ contributions

NR (DDS, MPH, PhD, HDR): Supervisor: substantial contributions to conception and design; revising the article; critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. ER (DDS, MPH): Principal researcher, Author: substantial contributions to conception and design; acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and revising the article. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

This research was anonymous, for identification, we used number. However, we used the malagasy consent form before interview of each participant.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approbation for the research on human subjects was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health. Before the interview, each individual was informed of the aims of the study and their consent to participate in the study was requested.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
IOSTM, University of Mahajanga
(2)
University of Paris Diderot
(3)
Ministry of Public Health

References

  1. Stewart AL, King AC. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life in older populations. In: Abeles RP, Gift HC, Ory MG, editors. Aging and quality of life 27–54. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Adulyanon S, Sheiham A. In: Slade GD, editor. Oral impacts on daily performances. Measuring oral health and quality of life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina; 1997. p. 151–60.Google Scholar
  3. Adulyanon S, Vourapukjaru J, Sheiham A. Oral impacts affecting daily performance in a low dental disease Thai population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1996;24:385–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tsakos G, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Evaluation of a modified version of the index of Oral Impacts On Daily Performances (OIDP) in elderly populations in two European countries. Gerodontology. 2001;18(2):121–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Yusuf H, Gherunpong S, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of an English version of the Child-OIDP index, an oral health-related quality of life measure for children. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:38.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Kida IA, Åstrøm AN, Strand GV, Masalu JR, Tsakos G. Psychometric properties and the prevalence, intensity and causes of oral impacts on daily performance (OIDP) in a population of older Tanzanians. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:56.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Åstrøm AN, Okullo I. Validity and reliability of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) frequency scale: a cross-sectional study of adolescents in Uganda. BMC Oral Health. 2003;3(1):5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Astrom AN, Haugejorden O, Skaret E, Trovik TA, Klock KS. Oral impacts on daily performance in Norwegian adults: validity, reliability and prevalence estimates. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113(4):289–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tubert-Jeannin S, Pegon-Machat E, Gremeau-Richard C, Lecuyer MM, Tsakos G. Validation of a French version of the Child-OIDP index. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113(5):355–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorri M, Sheiham A, Tsakos G. Validation of a Persian version of the OIDP index. BMC Oral Health. 2007;7:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Naito M, Suzukamo Y, Ito HO, Nakayama T. Development of a Japanese version of the oral Impacts on daily performance (OIDP) scale: a pilot study. J Oral Sc. 2007;49(4):259–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Montero J, Bravo M, Albaladejo A. Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS 0–10) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:101. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-101.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Jung SH, Ryu JI, Tsakos G, Sheiham A. A Korean version of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) scale in elderly populations: validity, reliability and prevalence. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Ostberg AL, Andersson P, Hakeberg M. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) in Swedish. Swed Dent J. 2008;32(4):187–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Erić J, Stančić I, Sojić LT, Jelenković Popovac A, Tsakos G. Validity and reliability of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) scale in the elderly population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):e902–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Purohit BM, Singh A, Acharya S, Bhat M, Priya H. Assessment and validation of the oral impact on daily performance (OIDP) instrument among adults in Karnataka, South India. Community Dent Health. 2012;29(3):203–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Vera C, Moreno X, Rivera D. Adaptation and validation of child oral impact on daily performance index in 11-14-year-old Chilean school children. J Oral Res. 2013;2(3):119–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawal FB, Taiwo JO, Arowojolu MO. Validation of the oral impact on daily performance frequency scale in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2013;42(3):215–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lajnert V, Gržić R, Radica N, Šnjaric D, Špalj S. Translation and validation of the Croatian version of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) scale. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2016;73(9):811–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Petersen PE, Razanamihaja N. Oral health status of children and adults in Madagascar. Int Dent J. 1996;46:271–6.Google Scholar
  21. Petersen PE, Yamamoto T. Improving the oral health of older people: the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(2):81–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N, for the European Regulatory Issues and Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) Group. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11(3):509–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. World Health Organisation. Oral health surveys: basic methods. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 2006;16:297–333.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press Book; 1990.Google Scholar
  27. World Health Organization. Oral health in the African region: a region strategy 1999–2008. Harare: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Petersen PE. The world oral health report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century – the approach of the WHO global oral health programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31 Suppl 1:3–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiser H. An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39:31–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Nunnally JC, Berstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar
  31. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement