Open Access

Oral health-related quality of life in an aging Canadian population

  • Robert D Kotzer1Email author,
  • Herenia P Lawrence1,
  • Joanne B Clovis2 and
  • Debora C Matthews3
Contributed equally
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201210:50

DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-50

Received: 18 February 2012

Accepted: 30 April 2012

Published: 15 May 2012

Abstract

Background

The purpose of the study is to describe the impact of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) on the lives of pre-seniors and seniors living in Nova Scotia, Canada.

Methods

This cross-sectional study involved 1461 participants, grouped by age (pre-seniors [45–64] and seniors [65+]) and residential status (long-term care facility [LTC] or community). OHRQoL was measured using the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14) in a random digit dialing telephone survey (for community residents) or a face-to-face interview (for LTC residents). Intra-oral examinations were performed by one of six dentists calibrated to W.H.O. standards.

Results

Approximately one in four pre-seniors and seniors reported at least one OHRQoL impact ‘fairly/very often’. The most commonly reported impacts were within the dimensions ‘physical pain’ and ‘psychological discomfort’. It was found that 12.2% of LTC residents found it uncomfortable to eat any foods ‘fairly/very’ often compared to 7.7% in the community, and 11.6% of LTC residents reported being self-conscious ‘fairly/very often’ compared to 8.2% in the community. Of those residing in the community, pre-seniors (28.8%) reported significantly more impacts than seniors (22.0%); but there were no significant differences in OHRQoL between pre-seniors (21.2%) and seniors (25.3%) in LTC. Pre-seniors living in the community scored significantly higher than community dwelling seniors on prevalence, extent and severity of OHIP-14 scores. Logistic regression revealed that for the community dwelling sample, individuals living in rural areas in addition to those being born outside of Canada were approximately 2.0 times more likely to report an impact ‘fairly/very often’, whereas among the LTC sample, those having a high school education or less were 2.3 times more likely to report an impact.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that the oral health and OHRQoL of both pre-seniors and seniors in LTC residents is poor. Community dwelling pre-seniors have the highest prevalence rate of oral impacts.

Keywords

Oral health Quality of life Elderly Aging Seniors Pre-seniors Canada

Background

Compared to previous decades, the elderly population today is much more predominant in Canada and continues to rapidly increase due to longer life expectancy and the effects of the baby boom generation[13]. As these individuals (born between 1947 and 1966) begin to turn 65 years of age (in 2012), the number of seniors in Canada is estimated to jump from 4.2 million to 9.8 million from 2005 to 2036[4]. In Nova Scotia, the seniors’ population in 2033 is estimated to be 257,874, an increase of 86.3% from 2007[2]. Due to the aging of the population and increased purchasing power of today’s elderly, more people are taking advantage of the advancements in dental healthcare, leading to a decrease in rates of edentulism[58]. As a result of living longer and retaining more of their natural teeth, more oral problems arise and the treatment decisions of these patients becomes much more complex[5, 9]. It is therefore imperative that information regarding the current oral health status, treatment needs, as well as the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of aging Canadians is collected in order to guide oral health policy. In the field of dentistry, the term “oral health-related quality of life” is commonly used to describe the impact that one’s oral health can have on their everyday life experiences[10, 11]. The shift towards the importance of measuring one’s oral health-related quality of life reflects the reality that modern dentistry is not just aiming to prolong life or eliminate oral disease, but ultimately is attempting to make life better[12, 13]. This study examines the differences in oral health-related quality of life between people aged 45 years and older living in the community and in long-term care (LTC) facilities in Nova Scotia. It also addresses the differences in oral health-related quality of life between pre-seniors and seniors within the community and LTC residences. Discussions regarding the disparities among these populations along with possible solutions to these problems are also explored.

Methods

Study Design

This cross-sectional study is part of a larger survey – The Oral Health of our Aging Population (TOHAP) – conducted in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada in 2008–09[14]. The primary objective of TOHAP was to understand how the oral health and expectations of the baby boomer (45 yr-64 yr) generation differed from those preceding them (65 yr+) for the purpose of planning and creating policy. The participants were grouped by age (pre-seniors [aged 45 yr-64 yr] and seniors [65 yr+]), geographic location (urban or rural) and residential status (long-term care facility [LTC] or community dwelling). A pilot study was conducted prior to this survey to test the survey instruments and determine feasibility[15]. Ethics approval was received from the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at Dalhousie University.

Sample Size Determination

A sample size calculation based on known population prevalence rates determined the minimal sample size required was 382 pre-seniors, 382 seniors and 359 LTC residents[16]. This was adjusted to allow for a 10% cancellation rate of appointments.

Sampling Frame and Sample Selection

All private and government owned LTC facilities with at least 20 beds per facility were included in the sampling frame. A total of 102 LTC facilities were used to determine the sampling frame. The LTC samples were proportionate to size (small, medium or large) as well as location (rural or urban). A small facility had 20–34 beds, a medium sized facility had 35–101 beds and a large facility had greater than 102 beds. The study was completed in 31 LTC facilities across 21 communities in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada. Four private facilities and 28 public facilities were sampled.

There are three kinds of publicly funded LTC facilities that are all licensed and approved by the NS Department of Health. Nursing Homes (homes for the aged) meet the needs of people who require a high level of personal care and professional nursing care. These facilities are licensed and inspected by the Department of Health. Residential Care Facilities are homes for people in need of supervision and limited help with personal care. These facilities are also licensed and inspected by the Department of Health. Community Based Options provide a similar level of care that residential care facilities offer but only accommodate a maximum of three people in each home. These facilities are unlicensed, but are inspected and approved by the Department of Health. No Community Based Options were included in this study because they did not meet the requirement of accommodating at least 20 beds. This study did not distinguish between Residential Care Facilities and Nursing Homes. LTC residents pay for accommodation charges (including salaries, benefits and operational costs of LTC employees) and personal expenses (including dental services and transportation)[17].

Community sites were selected based on proximity to previously selected LTC facilities. In total, 22 Nova Scotian communities were chosen.

Measurements

Oral health-related quality of life was measured using the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14)[18]. This questionnaire was administered through a random digit dialing telephone survey, completed by a Toronto-based telephone marketing company (for those living independently in the community), or a face-to-face interview (for those in LTC). The OHIP-14 was also translated into Acadian French (the local dialect). For each of the 14 items contained in the OHIP-14, study members were asked how often they had experienced the problem in the past year. Responses were coded as ‘very often’ (scoring 4), ‘fairly often’ (scoring 3), ‘occasionally’ (scoring 2), ‘hardly ever’ (scoring 1) or ‘never’ (scoring 0). This self-report questionnaire contains seven domains including: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap.

In addition to the OHIP-14 questions, additional questions were derived from the 2007–09 Canadian Health Measures Survey[19]. These questions included: demographic information (age, sex, education, etc.), oral health questions (personal oral care habits and oral health care services utilization), general health questions, medication use, labour force activity (income and employment status) and questions regarding smoking and alcohol exposure.

Comprehensive intra-oral examinations were performed after the interview by one of six dentists, calibrated according to the standards of the World Health Organization (dentists were calibrated by a W.H.O. standardized dentist)[20] and the oral examination procedures used are reported elsewhere[14].

Procedures

A call list was assembled for each community targeting pre-seniors and seniors living within a 20 km radius of the community. From each call list, numbers were chosen randomly and called until contact with the individual was made, or three calls were made without contact. Only those who were able to provide informed consent to complete the telephone survey and the clinical exam were included in the study. Informed consent was accepted in writing or verbally.

Once informed consent was obtained for community dwellers, an interview was done over the phone in either English or French, using a script developed for the study. However, none of the community residents and only 5 of the LTC residents completed the interview in French. There were no problems specific to the OHIP interview by telephone. The same telephone interviewers were used throughout the data collection period.

After the interview was conducted, participants scheduled appointments for a clinical exam within two weeks of the interview. Appointments for the clinical exams were scheduled using an online appointment system and conducted at hospitals, local private dental offices, long-term care facilities and public health offices. Approximately one-third of daily appointments were double booked to compensate for those who did not show up to their appointment. In LTC facilities interviews were conducted in person by a trained research assistant, followed immediately by an onsite clinical exam. As an incentive to complete the study, all participants were placed in contention to win one of two $250 prizes by means of a lottery (upon completion of the study). Data were collected in two different collection periods. The first collection period took place in the fall of 2008, and the second in the spring and summer of 2009. Further details related to the methodology of this study can be found in a separate publication[14].

Data Analysis

Socio-demographic characteristics and self-perceived oral health status of community dwelling and LTC residents were summarized using descriptive statistics. Similarly, responses to individual OHIP-14 items were summarized according to place of residence. OHIP-14 overall scores were computed in three ways: (i) a total OHIP-14 score was calculated by summing responses over all 14 items, with possible scores ranging from 0 to 56 which indicates the severity of OHRQoL impacts; (ii) the prevalence of people reporting one or more items ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’; (iii) the extent, which is the number of items reported ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ ranging from 0 to 14[21]. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed using SPSS version 19. The non-parametric Mann-Whiney U test was used to compare the mean extent and severity of oral health impacts between pre-seniors and seniors living in the community or in LTC residences. A chi-square analysis for categorical variables and logistic regression (using a stepwise and forward technique based on the Wald statistic) were used to identify factors related to prevalence of oral impacts for community dwelling and LTC residents. Statistical tests were two-tailed and interpreted at the 5% significance level. The variables that were inserted into the multivariate analysis and are thus being controlled for include: age, community type (rural vs. urban), sex, having a high school education, perceived general health, perceived quality of life, perceived mouth health, satisfaction with one’s teeth or dentures, frequency of dental visits, having dental insurance, smoking, household income, oral pain, dentate status and country of birth. The measures of severity and extent of OHRQoL impacts were not used as outcomes in multivariate analyses due to their skewed distributions.

Results

Since there is such a small portion of Nova Scotia residents who live in LTC facilities (approximately 5%)[2], LTC residents were over-sampled in this study in order to gain enough power to identify an effect during statistical analyses. They represented 22.6% of the study population (Table1). LTC residents were significantly more likely to be aged 65 and older, be female, edentulous, have a high school education or less, a household income of less than $30,000/yr, visit a dental professional less than once per year, brush their teeth less than twice per day (dentate only), floss their teeth less than once per day (dentate only) and were less likely to have dental insurance or be daily smokers (Table1). In addition, LTC residents were significantly more likely to perceive their general health, quality of life and mouth health as fair or poor but have less oral pain than their community-dwelling counterparts (Table2).
Table 1

Characteristics of study participants aged 45 years and older living in the community or long-term care in Nova Scotia, Canada

Characteristic

 

% (N)

 

Total

Community

LTC

 

100 (1461)

77.4 (1131)

22.6 (330)

Age (yrs)

 45 – 64

45.3 (662)

55.6 (629)

10 (33)

 65 and over

54.7 (799)

44.4 (502)

90 (297)

Sex

 Male

34.5 (504)

37.1 (420)

25.5 (84)

 Female

65.5 (957)

62.9 (711)

74.5 (246)

Education Level

 More than high school

49.3 (718)

57.6 (649)

21.0 (69)

 High school or less

50.7 (738)

42.4 (478)

79.0 (260)

Community Type

   

 Urban

59.1 (864)

59.2 (669)

59.1 (195)

 Rural

40.9 (597)

40.8 (462)

40.9 (135)

Annual Household Income

 More than $30,000

57.6 (643)

72.0 (618)

9.7 (25)

 Less than $30,000

42.4 (474)

28.0 (240)

90.3 (234)

Dental Insurance

 Yes

43.5 (621)

50.7 (568)

17.3 (53)

 No

56.5 (806)

49.3 (553)

82.7 (253)

Country of Birth

   

 Canada

90.3 (1316)

90.3 (1018)

90.3 (298)

 Other

9.7 (141)

9.7 (109)

9.7 (32)

Frequency of Dental Visits

 1+ times per year

59.9 (862)

70.1 (782)

24.7 (80)

 < 1 times per year

40.1 (578)

29.9 (334)

75.3 (244)

Dentate status

   

 Dentate

81.8 (878)

91.9 (684)

59.0 (194)

 Edentulous

18.2 (195)

8.1 (60)

41.0 (135)

Brushing Frequency (dentate only)

 2+ times per day

74.2 (650)

79.3 (541)

56.2 (109)

 < 2 times per day

25.8 (226)

20.7 (141)

43.8 (85)

Flossing Frequency (dentate only)

 1+ times per day

35.2 (299)

40.3 (268)

16.8 (31)

 < 1 times per day

64.8 (551)

59.7 (397)

83.2 (154)

Smoking Frequency

Occasionally or not at all

88.4 (1288)

87.3 (985)

92.1 (303)

Daily

11.6 (169)

12.7 (143)

7.9 (26)

N.B. Bolded percentages are significant when p ≤0.05 using the Chi-square test.

Table 2

Self-perceived oral health status of adults aged 45 and older in Nova Scotia, Canada

Characteristic

 

% (N)

 

Total

Community

LTC

 

100 (1461)

77.4 (1131)

22.6 (330)

Perceived General Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

80.0 (1167)

84.1 (950)

66.0 (217)

 Fair or poor

20.0 (292)

15.9 (180)

34.0 (112)

Perceived Quality of Life

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

89.8 (1305)

92.8 (1049)

79.0 (256)

 Fair or poor

10.2 (149)

7.2 (81)

21.0 (68)

Perceived Mouth Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

79.9 (1161)

81.1 (916)

75.6 (245)

 Fair or poor

20.1 (292)

18.9 (213)

24.4 (79)

Oral Pain

   

 No oral pain

69.0 (743)

66.0 (493)

75.8 (250)

 Mouth, dental, jaw or other pain

31.0 (334)

34.0 (254)

24.2 (80)

Satisfaction with Teeth/Dentures

   

 Very satisfied/ satisfied/ neither

85.4 (1235)

85.4 (1235)

84.9 (269)

 satisfied or dissatisfied

14.6 (211)

14.6 (211)

15.1 (48)

 Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied

   

N.B. Bolded percentages are significant when p ≤0.05 using the Chi-square test.

The most commonly reported oral health quality of life impacts were within the dimensions ‘physical pain’ and ‘psychological discomfort’ (Table3). It was found that 12.2% of LTC residents found it uncomfortable to eat any foods ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ compared to 7.7% in the community. Nearly 12% of LTC reported being self-conscious ‘fairly/very often’ compared to 8.2% in the community, while 9.7% of LTC residents reported being embarrassed by their teeth, mouth or dentures ‘fairly/very often’ compared to 4% in the community. In addition, 6.1% of LTC residents compared to 2% of community dwellers reported impacts ‘fairly/very often’ with regards to difficulty pronouncing words.
Table 3

Distribution of responses to individual OHIP-14 items and mean item scores ( n= 1460*)

Dimension and description of item

Distribution of responses%

 

Mean (SD)

 

“Because of trouble with your teeth, mouth or dentures during the last year, …”

Never (0)/Hardly Ever (1)

Occasionally (2)

Fairly Often (3)/Very Often (4)

   
 

Comm.

LTC

Comm.

LTC

Comm.

LTC

Community

LTC

Functional limitation

        

 have you had trouble pronouncing any words?

92.9

 

86.7

5.2

7.3

 

2.0

 

6.1

0.09 (0.35)

0.19 (0.53)

 have you felt that your sense of taste has worsened?

88.5

 

88.8

7.5

5.9

 

4.0

 

5.3

0.16 (0.46)

0.17 (0.49)

Physical pain

 have you had painful aching in your mouth?

79.7

 

83.6

15.2

11.8

 

5.2

 

4.5

0.25 (0.54)

0.21 (0.51)

 have you found it uncomfortable to eat any foods?

74.8

 

73.3

17.5

14.6

 

7.7

 

12.2

0.33 (0.61)

0.39 (0.69)

Psychological discomfort

 have you been self-conscious?

78.7

 

74.5

13.1

14.0

 

8.2

 

11.6

0.29 (0.61)

0.37 (0.68)

 have you felt tense?

80.2

 

84.4

12.4

8.0

 

7.4

 

7.6

0.27 (0.59)

0.23 (0.58)

Physical disability

 has your diet been unsatisfactory?

86.3

 

84.5

7.8

7.9

 

5.9

 

7.6

0.20 (0.53)

0.23 (0.58)

 have you had to interrupt meals?

91.0

 

88.8

6.0

6.7

 

2.9

 

4.6

0.12 (0.41)

0.16 (0.47)

Psychological disability

 have you found it difficult to relax?

85.4

 

88.4

9.6

6.4

 

5.1

 

5.2

0.20 (0.51)

0.17 (0.49)

 have you been a bit embarrassed?

83.8

 

82.4

12.2

7.9

 

4.0

 

9.7

0.20 (0.49)

0.27 (0.63)

Social disability

 have you been a bit irritable with other people?

86.1

 

89.1

10.6

7.3

 

3.3

 

3.6

0.17 (0.46)

0.15 (0.45)

 have you had difficulty doing your usual jobs?

93.8

 

93.9

3.9

3.1

 

2.3

 

3.1

0.09 (0.35)

0.09 (0.38)

Handicap

 have you felt that life in general was less satisfying?

89.7

 

87.2

6.6

6.7

 

3.7

 

6.1

0.14 (0.44)

0.19 (0.53)

 have you been totally unable to function?

96.1

 

95.1

2.6

2.4

 

1.3

 

2.4

0.05 (0.28)

0.07 (0.34)

*One participant in the community sample did not have complete data for the OHIP-14.

In terms of ‘prevalence’ of impact, 25.8% of the community dwellers and 24.8% of LTC residents reported one or more OHIP problems ‘fairly/very often’. A larger percentage of LTC residents reported one or more impacts ‘fairly/very often’ in the functional limitation, physical pain, psychological disability and handicap dimensions. Regarding ‘extent’ of impact, (i.e., the mean number of OHIP items reported ‘fairly/very often’) the mean for community residents was 0.63 (SD = ±1.59) and 0.89 (SD = ±2.24) for LTC residents. Furthermore, in terms of ‘severity’ of impact, (i.e., the total OHIP score) the mean was 5.57 (SD = ±7.57) for community dwellers and 5.57 (SD = ±9.58) for LTC residents (Table4). However, a statistically significant difference was reported in terms of the mean number of items reported ‘fairly/very often’ between community and LTC residents.
Table 4

Prevalence, extent and severity of impacts by OHIP-14 subscale and total score ( n= 1460)

Dimension

Prevalence: % reporting 1+ impacts fairly/very often (no.)

Extent: mean no. of items reported fairly/very often (SD)

Severity: mean OHIP-14 score (SD)

 

Community

LTC

Community

LTC

Community

LTC

Functional limitation

5.4 (61)

9.4 (31)

0.06 (0.26)

0.11 (0.37)

0.56 (1.20)

0.69 (1.48)

Physical pain

9.6 (109)

13.9 (46)

0.13 (0.42)

0.17 (0.44)

1.25 (1.81)

1.17 (1.85)

Psychological discomfort

12.0 (136)

13.6 (45)

0.15 (0.45)

0.19 (0.51)

1.16 (1.86)

1.14 (2.03)

Physical disability

7.6 (86)

7.9 (26)

0.09 (0.33)

0.12 (0.44)

0.69 (1.40)

0.76 (1.78)

Psychological disability

7.3 (82)

11.5 (38)

0.09 (0.34)

0.15 (0.44)

0.85 (1.59)

0.85 (1.81)

Social disability

4.7 (53)

4.2 (14)

0.06 (0.27)

0.07 (0.33)

0.59 (1.32)

0.46 (1.32)

Handicap

4.1 (46)

6.7 (22)

0.05 (0.26)

0.09 (0.34)

0.47 (1.19)

0.51 (1.43)

Total OHIP-14 score

25.8 (291)

24.8 (82)

0.63 (1.59)

0.89 (2.24)

5.57 (7.57)

5.57 (9.58)

N.B. Bolded percentages are significant when p ≤0.05 using the Chi-square test.

N.B. Bolded means are significant when p ≤0.05 using the Independent Samples T-test.

Further analysis of prevalence, extent and severity were carried out by comparing pre-seniors with seniors in both LTC and community settings (Table5). It was found that in the community, pre-seniors scored significantly higher than seniors on prevalence (p = 0.009), extent (p = 0.007) and severity (p < 0.001). In the LTC residences, seniors scored higher than pre-seniors for prevalence, extent and severity but there was not a statistically significant difference in the OHIP-14 scores. Although not mentioned in the tables, pre-seniors from the community were compared with pre-seniors in LTC, and seniors from the community were compared with seniors from LTC. Pre-seniors in the community scored higher on prevalence, extent and severity than pre-seniors in LTC residences, but severity was the only significant difference (p = 0.033). Furthermore, seniors in LTC residences scored higher than seniors in the community for prevalence, extent and severity, but the differences were not statistically significant.
Table 5

Prevalence, extent and severity of impacts by OHIP-14 subscale grouped by pre-seniors and seniors

 

Community

LTC

 

Pre-seniors

(n=629)

Seniors

(n=501)

P-value

Pre-seniors

(n=33)

Seniors

(n=297)

P-value

Prevalence: % reporting 1+ impacts fairly/very often (no.)

28.8 (181)

22.0 (110)

0.009 *

21.2 (7)

25.3 (75)

0.610 *

Extent: mean no. of items reported fairly/very often (SD)

0.73 (1.73)

0.49 (1.40)

0.007 **

0.45 (1.33)

0.94 (2.32)

0.456**

Severity: mean OHIP-14 score (SD)

6.22 (8.0)

4.75 (6.92)

<0.001 **

4.30 (7.29)

5.71 (9.80)

0.867**

*P-value obtained from the Chi-squared test.

**P-value obtained from the Mann–Whitney U test.

Bivariate analyses were conducted for prevalence of impacts for both community and LTC residents. Community residents who reported one or more impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ were more likely to be pre-seniors, live in a rural area, be female, have a high school education or less, make less than $30,000 per year, visit the dentist less than once per year, smoke daily, have oral pain, perceive their general health, mouth health and quality of life to be fair or poor and be dissatisfied with their teeth or dentures (Table6). LTC residents who reported one or more impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ were more likely to have a high school education or less, have oral pain, perceive their general health, mouth health and quality of life to be fair or poor and be dissatisfied with their teeth or dentures (Table7).
Table 6

Bivariate analyses for prevalence of impacts (‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’) for community residents

Characteristic

% (N)

 

No Impacts

1+ Impacts

P-value

Age (yrs)

   

 45 – 64

71.2 (448)

28.8 (181)

0.009

 65 and over

78.0 (391)

22.0 (110)

 

Community Type

   

 Urban

79.2 (529)

20.8 (139)

< 0.001

 Rural

67.1 (310)

32.9 (152)

 

Sex

   

 Male

78.3 (328)

21.7 (91)

0.017

 Female

71.9 (511)

28.1 (200)

 

Education Level

   

 More than high school

78.3 (508)

21.7 (141)

< 0.001

 High school or less

68.6 (328)

31.4 (150)

 

Annual Household Income

   

 More than $30,000

77.0 (476)

23.0 (142)

< 0.001

 Less than $30,000

64.2 (154)

35.8 (86)

 

Dental Insurance

   

 Yes

75.9 (431)

24.1 (137)

0.278

 No

73.1 (404)

26.9 (149)

 

Country of Birth

   

 Canada

74.8 (761)

25.2 (256)

0.341

 Other

70.6 (77)

29.4 (32)

 

Frequency of Dental Visits

   

 1+ times per year

77.7 (608)

22.3 (174)

< 0.001

 < 1 time per year

65.6 (219)

34.4 (115)

 

Dentate Status

   

 Dentate

76.3 (524)

23.7 (163)

0.169

 Edentulous

68.3 (41)

31.7 (19)

 

Smoking Frequency

   

 Occasionally or not at all

75.8 (747)

24.2 (238)

0.003

 Daily

64.3 (92)

35.7 (51)

 

Oral Pain

   

 No

82.8 (408)

17.2 (85)

< 0.001

 Yes

61.8 (157)

38.2 (97)

 

Perceived General Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

77.9 (740)

22.1 (210)

< 0.001

 Fair or poor

55.0 (99)

45.0 (81)

 

Perceived Mouth Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

79.7 (730)

20.3 (186)

< 0.001

 Fair or poor

50.7 (108)

49.3 (105)

 

Satisfaction with Teeth or Dentures

   

Satisfied

79.5 (768)

20.5 (198)

< 0.001

Dissatisfied

42.9 (70)

57.1 (93)

 

Perceived Quality of Life

   

Excellent/ very good/ good

76.5 (803)

23.5 (246)

< 0.001

Fair or poor

44.4 (36)

55.6 (45)

 
Table 7

Bivariate analyses for prevalence of impacts (‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’) for LTC residents

 

% (N)

Characteristic

No Impacts

1+ Impacts

P-value

 45 – 64

78.8 (26)

21.2 (7)

0.610

 65 and over

74.7 (222)

25.3 (75)

 

 Urban

76.9 (150)

23.1 (45)

0.371

 Rural

72.6 (98)

27.4 (37)

 

Sex

   

 Male

73.8 (62)

26.2 (22)

0.742

 Female

75.6 (186)

24.4 (60)

 

Education Level

   

 More than high school

84.1 (58)

15.9 (11)

0.052

 High school or less

72.7 (189)

27.3 (71)

 

Annual Household Income

   

 More than $30,000

88.0 (22)

12.0 (3)

0.081

 Less than $30,000

71.8 (168)

28.2 (66)

 

Dental Insurance

   

 Yes

79.2 (42)

20.8 (11)

0.384

 No

73.5 (186)

26.5 (67)

 

Country of Birth

   

 Canada

74.8 (223)

25.2 (75)

0.682

 Other

78.1 (25)

21.9 (7)

 

Frequency of Dental Visits

   

 1+ times per year

76.3 (61)

23.8 (19)

0.766

 < 1 time per year

74.6 (182)

25.4 (62)

 

Dentate Status

   

 Dentate

75.3 (146)

24.7 (48)

0.957

 Edentulous

75.0 (102)

25.0 (34)

 

Smoking Frequency

   

 Occasionally or not at all

76.2 (231)

23.8 (72)

0.096

 Daily

61.5 (16)

38.5 (10)

 

Oral Pain

   

 No

79.6 (199)

20.4 (51)

0.001

 Yes

61.3 (49)

38.8 (31)

 

Perceived General Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

81.1 (176)

18.9 (41)

0.001

 Fair or poor

64.3 (72)

35.7 (40)

 

Perceived Mouth Health

   

 Excellent/ very good/ good

85.7 (210)

14.3 (35)

< 0.001

 Fair or poor

40.5 (32)

59.5 (47)

 

Satisfaction with Teeth or Dentures

   

Satisfied

81.0 (218)

19.0 (51)

< 0.001

Dissatisfied

56.3 (27)

43.8 (21)

 

Perceived Quality of Life

   

Excellent/ very good/ good

80.5 (206)

19.5 (50)

< 0.001

Fair or poor

54.4 (37)

45.6 (31)

 
Logistic regression models controlling for all the factors (significant and non-significant) at the bivariate level of analysis were used to predict the prevalence of impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ for community and LTC residents, separately. For the community dwelling sample, individuals living in rural areas and those born outside of Canada were approximately 2.0 times more likely to report an impact ‘fairly/very often’ (Table8). Having oral pain, fair or poor perceived mouth health and dissatisfaction with teeth or dentures also caused community residents to report impacts. Among the LTC sample, those having a high school education or less were 2.3 times more likely to report an impact ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’ (Table9). Those with fair or poor perceived mouth health were nearly 10 times more likely to report impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’.
Table 8

Logistic regression model for prevalence of impacts (‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’) for community residents

 

Adjusted Odds Ratio

95% CI for Odds Ratio

P-value

Living in a rural area

2.07

1.35 – 3.17

0.001

Having oral pain

1.87

1.21 – 2.88

0.005

Born outside of Canada

1.97

1.01 – 3.85

0.048

Fair or poor perceived mouth health

2.19

1.30 – 3.71

0.003

Dissatisfaction with teeth or dentures

5.16

2.87 – 9.27

<0.001

CI = Confidence Interval.

Table 9

Logistic regression model for prevalence of impacts (‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’) for LTC residents

 

Adjusted Odds Ratio

95% CI for Odds Ratio

P-value

High school education or less

2.29

1.05 – 5.00

0.039

Fair of poor perceived mouth health

9.49

5.27 – 17.09

<0.001

CI = Confidence Interval.

Discussion

The 2007–09 Canadian Health Measures Survey, in accordance with Statistics Canada, released data regarding the oral health status and treatment needs of elderly Canadians, but did not do so at the provincial level[22]. The TOHAP study is the first to focus on the oral health of older adults living in the province of Nova Scotia. The findings of this study are not only important in assembling a complete picture of the oral health of Canadians, but they also provide important insight into the oral health-related quality of life of these individuals.

The most interesting finding of this study was regarding the comparison of oral health impacts on pre-seniors and seniors. It was found that pre-seniors living in the community reported more oral health impacts than seniors even though the oral health of pre-seniors was better than that of seniors[23]. This reinforces the notion that individual expectations and experiences can greatly impact ones satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their oral health[12]. For example, one who experiences poor health but has low expectations may not perceive their health to have a significant impact on his/her life. Seniors living within the community may not feel as though oral health has a huge impact on their lives and may be more satisfied with the quality of their oral health compared to their general health, causing them to report less impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’. In contrast, one who has excellent oral health but extremely high expectations might report being dissatisfied due to a minor oral health-related problem. Community dwelling pre-seniors who are generally in good health may become irritated by small oral health problems, and frustrated that dental visits can be expensive and cut into work hours[12]. Locker and Gibson’s (2005) study of community living individuals over the age of 50 reported that 16.5% of those who rated their oral health as either excellent, very good, or good were dissatisfied with their oral health[12]. Moreover, 50.8% of participants who rated their oral health as fair or poor reported that they were satisfied with mouth, teeth or gums.

In addition, the frames of reference on which people base their oral health can naturally range depending on a host of variables. While some compare themselves to others who are close in age, others might use their physical or emotional state to assess their oral health. Some people who have, or perceive themselves as having, poor oral health may actually be satisfied with the state of their oral health[12, 24]. Sprangers and Schwartz (1999) explain this phenomenon through the process of response shift. This is when changes in internal standards, values and meanings of health contribute to the acceptance of an individual’s illness or disability[24]. As individuals age, they are more likely to consider minor or even severe oral health problems as insignificant at this point in their lives[12]. The theory of response shift may explain why community dwelling seniors, and the elderly population in general, may report fewer impacts in certain dimensions[24]. As these individuals age, they come to accept that their health is deteriorating and they may consider oral health problems as less significant[12]. Consequently, these oral health problems take a backseat to general health problems. A study completed in Ontario involving 61 residents in three long-term care facilities suggests that general health issues often overshadowed and minimized oral health issues in long-term care facilities. Chronic illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, which interfere with ones cognitive and communicative skills, cause barriers in identifying treatments needs for these residents[25].

In the study completed by Locker and Quinonez[26] telephone numbers for households (therefore those living in the community) were randomly sampled in a Canadian population. They found that those between the ages of 35–54 reported an 18.3% prevalence rate of oral impacts, and those aged greater than or equal to 55 years reported a 19.5% prevalence rate[26]. In this national study an older population of community dwellers reported 1.2% more impacts than a younger population of community dwellers. Despite the slight difference in age groups, our results show that among those living within the community, pre-seniors reported a 28.8% prevalence rate of oral impacts, whereas seniors reported a prevalence rate of 22.0%.

Another important finding of our study indicates that approximately one in four pre-seniors and seniors report at least one or more impacts of their oral health on the quality of life ‘fairly’ or ‘very often’. This is slightly higher than a national study of adults aged 55 years and older where the finding was one in five (19.5%)[26]. The Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories, which make up 0.3% of the Canadian population, were not included in that study. It is evident that no matter where you live in Canada, people in your community are going to report having oral impacts. But, it is important to note that older samples and edentulous samples will report having more OHRQoL impacts.

Logistic regression models indicate that both socio-demographic factors and self-perceived oral health can have an effect on the prevalence of impacts. The findings that pre-seniors and seniors in rural areas have the poorest OHRQoL suggest that a decreased access to dental care may be affecting their oral health and OHRQoL. Further findings show that elderly residents living in the community visit the dentist significantly less often if they live in rural areas as opposed to urban areas. Results indicate that 75.4% of Nova Scotia residents aged 45 and older who live in an urban area visit the dentist one or more times per year, whereas only 62.4% of rural residents visit the dentist one or more times per year. According to the literature, “in dentistry, a functional definition of an elderly adult is based on his or her ability to travel to seek services”[5]. Many elderly patients who live in rural areas may have access to fewer dental clinics, or there may be barriers limiting their access to care. Barriers include lack of public transportation, cost of transportation and treatment, or mobility issues[27]. The reliance of many seniors on others for help may also limit their ability to receive dental care[27].

Furthermore, funding for retired employees must be developed by union negotiators, working Canadians must plan for retirement by saving money for dental care and family members and caregivers must be educated in the importance of dental care for the elderly[28].

Although many health economists believe that government funding may be insufficient to meet the increasing dental needs of the baby boom population[28], education is a relatively inexpensive, yet effective dental health care initiative because it is generally less expensive to prevent disease than cure it[28]. A large percentage of the Nova Scotian elderly population has a high school education or less. This is especially troubling because education is a social determinant of health and education is also highly related to health literacy.

Health literacy has been defined as “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions”[29]. Health literacy skills are essential in the maintenance of quality of life for the elderly population[30]. It has also been shown to be an important contributor to both general and oral health[28]. As individuals age, health literacy also becomes an important tool to help take or administer medications appropriately[31].

Although our study, in addition to other similar studies, have identified potential correlates of health literacy, few studies have attempted to recognize educational and learning pathways that increase health literacy skills throughout ones life[30]. The development and maintenance of health literacy skills throughout ones life can be accomplished by the use of adult education, seminars, self-study, internet use, library use, daily reading and engagement in social networks[30]. A study found that practicing literacy at home by methods such as reading books, magazines and newspapers, had a stronger effect on ones health literacy than educational attainment[32]. These practices can be maintained throughout ones life and will maintain and increase ones literacy in a relatively inexpensive manner. In addition, using the internet or computer to learn was found to be one of the strongest predictors of adequate health literacy[30].

Another issue that must be addressed is the current level of communication between dental care providers and their patients, which is important for the elderly population. Effective communication is critical for dentists and hygienists in improving the oral health literacy of their patients[33]. Several findings suggest that the communication techniques used by dentists may not be effectively accommodating the literacy skills of certain patients[34]. One technique among others that has been proven to be effective in increasing the health literacy of patients is the teach-back method; therefore it is important that a set of communications guidelines for practicing dentists be developed[34].

While some studies question whether literacy is really a problem in the context of health care, and suggest a need for more Canadian research in this area[35], education and health literacy can improve access to care for Canadian seniors and the general population by focusing on health, oral health, and quality of life issues[28]. Education that focuses and raises awareness on how oral health enhances self-image and social interactions can also positively affect attitudes towards care[28].

In addition, it was found that those who were born outside of Canada living within the community have greater oral health impacts, implying that oral health literacy, understanding the Canadian health-care system and acculturation may be limiting their access to dental care. An increase in educational resources and training by dentists and dental hygienists can be essential in developing proper oral health care skills and routines for seniors, LTC nursing staff, and family members[27]. Education is also necessary so that they can provide care in a productive, cost-effective and timely manner[28].

The binary logistic regression model also indicated that for those living in the community, people with oral pain were 1.87 times more likely to report impacts, and those with fair or poor perceived mouth health were 2.19 times more likely to report impacts. These two variables are closely related to the outcome of oral health-related quality of life and it is therefore not surprising to find them in this model. Similarly, those with dissatisfaction with the appearance of their teeth and/or dentures were 5.16 times more likely to report impacts ‘fairly often’ or ‘very often’. This readdresses the theme of how a complication with ones teeth and/or dentures can have a significant impact on oral health-related quality of life. Dissatisfaction with the appearance of teeth and/or dentures is directly related to variables on the OHIP-14 such as being self conscious and embarrassed. Being self conscious because of trouble with teeth, mouth or dentures was one of the highest scoring items on the OHIP-14.

Moreover, LTC residents with a low education level may be a group at risk in terms of greater impacts on their OHRQoL. LTC residents have poorer indicators of socioeconomic status including household income and dental insurance. Since dental coverage is not covered by the Canadian healthcare system, out of pocket costs may deter people from seeking dental care or accepting recommended dental care when visiting the dentist[22]. The Canadian Health Measures Survey reported that as Canadians age they are less likely to have dental insurance. In addition, being born outside of Canada, annual income and level of education are also directly related to having dental insurance[22]. A 2006 study using Canadian health survey data from 2003, found that the probability of receiving any dental care throughout the course of a year increases dramatically with dental insurance, household income and level of education[36]. This study confirms these findings in the NS population as 79% of LTC residents have less than or equal to a high school education, 82.7% do not have dental insurance and 90.3% have an annual household income of less than $30,000.

Reported in the 2006 census, only 24% of adults aged 25–64 had a high school diploma as their highest level of educational attainment, while 15% did not graduate from high school. In addition, 32% of adults aged 55 to 64 years did not have a high school diploma[37]. Educational attainment is recognized as one of the key components of socioeconomic status, and while income and education are highly correlated, education is an independent predictor of health status and visiting the dentist[38, 39]. Regardless of age, people with low education levels have more disabilities and chronic illnesses[38]. People with a higher educational background tend to embrace positive health practices and have access to healthier physical environments[38].

It is clear that public health initiatives need to focus on Canadians with low levels of education. Even though access to education and literacy levels are for the most part managed outside of the health sector, they have a direct effect on health status. Therefore, multi-sectoral strategies must be implemented in order to improve the health of Canadians[38].

In addition to a high school education, LTC residents with fair or poor perceived mouth health were 9.49 times more likely to report impacts. LTC residents have poor oral hygiene and limited access to routine dental care[40]. It has been shown that once a comprehensive dental program is implemented into LTC facilities, residents who receive dental care show improvements in caries rates, periodontal health, and other clinical oral disorders[40]. Living in an LTC facility is a barrier to treatment in and of itself. Therefore it is imperative that dental programs be developed in order to increase access to dental care for seniors in LTC, by providing transportation or by bringing oral care providers and dental equipment into the facilities.

Conclusions

This study has provided valuable information regarding the oral health-related quality of life of pre-seniors and seniors living in Nova Scotia, Canada. LTC residents are more likely to have poorer indicators of socio-demographic characteristics and self-perceived oral health status compared to community dwellers. Having more oral health problems can have an effect on one’s OHRQoL and in turn, explain why LTC residents report impacts ‘fairly/very often’ on the OHIP-14. One in four pre-seniors and seniors living in the community and LTC facilities reported one or more impacts ‘fairly/very often’, however, pre-seniors in the community experienced greater prevalence, extent and severity of oral impacts than seniors. This finding suggests that as people age, oral health problems may take a backseat to general health problems. The study findings also indicate that pre-seniors and seniors in rural areas have the poorest OHRQoL, suggesting that a decreased access to dental care may be affecting their oral health and OHRQoL. In addition, lower levels of education and health literacy overall and especially among those who were born outside of Canada but are now living within the community have greater oral health impacts, suggesting that decreased oral health literacy and a lack of understanding of the Canadian health care system may be limiting their access to dental care. LTC residents with a low education level and low health literacy may be a group at higher risk in terms of greater impacts on their OHRQoL.

Abreviations

OHRQoL: Oral health-related quality of life; TOHAP: The Oral Health of our Aging Population; LTC: Long-term care; OHIP: Oral Health Impact Profile; NS: Nova Scotia.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research – Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (ROP-86224), Health Canada (Office of the Chief Dental Officer) and the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Discipline of Dental Public Health, Department of Biological and Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
(2)
School of Dental Hygiene, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University
(3)
Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University

References

  1. McNally M: Oral health matters: what will it take to leave no seniors behind? J Can Dent Assoc 2005, 71(7):465–467.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Nova Scotia Department of Seniors: Seniors Statistical Profile. 2009. Crown Copyright 1–100. Available at:http://www.gov.ns.ca/seniors/pub/2009_StatProfile.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Statistics Canada: Canada's population estimates: Age and sex. Statistics Canada "The Daily" 2009. Friday. 2009. Available at:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091127/dq091127b-eng.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. Statistics Canada: A portrait of seniors in Canada. Second edition edition. 2006. 89–519-XIEGoogle Scholar
  5. Ettinger RL: Oral health and the aging population. J Am Dent Assoc 2007, 138: 5S-6S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ettinger RL: Cohort differences among aging populations: a challenge for the dental profession. Spec Care Dentist 1993, 13(1):19–26. 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1993.tb01449.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunha-Cruz J, Hujoel PP, Nadanovsky P: Secular trends in socioeconomic disparities in edentulism: USA, 1972–2001. J Dent Res 2007, 86(2):131–136. 10.1177/154405910708600205View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dye BA, Tan S, Smith V, Dye BA, Tan S, Smith V, et al.: Trends in oral health status: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. Vital and Health Statistics Series 11, Number 248. DHHS publication PHS 2007–1698; 2007:67. Available at:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Reinhardt JW, Douglass CW: The need for operative dentistry services: projecting the effect of changing disease patterns. Oper Dent 1989, 14(3):114–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. MacEntee MI: Quality of life as an indicator of oral health in older people. J Am Dent Assoc 2007, 138: 47S-52S.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Locker D, Allen F: What do measures of ‘oral health-related quality of life’ measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007, 35: 401–411. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00418.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Locker D, Gibson B: Discrepancies between self-ratings of and satisfaction with oral health in two older populations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005, 33: 280–288. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00209.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Guyatt GD, Cook DJ: Health status, quality of life and the individual. JAMA 1994, 272: 630–631. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520080072047View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Matthews DC, Brillant MGS, Clovis JB, McNally Me, Filiaggi MJ, Kotzer RD, Lawrence HP: Assessing the oral health of an aging population: methods, challenges and predictors of survey. Gerodontology 2011. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00540.xGoogle Scholar
  15. Riddell J, Matthews D, Clovis J, McNally M, Filiaggi M: Oral Health Status and Access to Care for Nova Scotia Seniors. 2006. File # PSO-Project 2004 – 4038. Progress ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. Nova Scotia Government: Nova Scotia Community Counts web page - data modeled from Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006. 2011. Available at:http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/communitycounts/profiles/community/default.asp?gnum=com1508&gview=2&glevel=comGoogle Scholar
  17. Nova Scotia Government. Continuing Care Programs web page: Fact sheets and forms. Crown Copyright. 2011. Available at:http://www.gov.ns.ca/health/ccs/fact_sheets.aspGoogle Scholar
  18. Slade G: Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007, 25: 284–290.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Statistics Canada: Canadian Health Measures Survey: Cycle 1: to 2009. Household Questionnaire 2007, 2006: 1–166.Google Scholar
  20. Statistics Canada: Canadian Health Measures Survey Cycle 1: to 2009. Clinic Questionnaire 2007, 2006: 1–105.Google Scholar
  21. Lawrence HP, Thomson WM, Broadbent JM, Poulton R: Oral health-related quality of life in a birth cohort of 32-year olds. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2008, 36: 305–316. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00395.xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Health Canada: Report on the findings of the oral health component of the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007–2009. Ministry of Health, Government of Canada. 2010. Available at:http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/23B5656E-E96F-4E17-B1EE-1843039494CC/0/CanadaOralHealth20079FullReport.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Kotzer R: Oral health-related quality of life in an aging Canadian population. MSc thesis. University of Toronto: Graduate Department of Dentistry; 2011.Google Scholar
  24. Sprangers M, Schwartz C: Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999, 48: 1507–1515. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Finkleman G, Lawrence P, Glogauer M: The impact of integration of dental services on oral health in long-term care: qualitative analysis. Gerodontology 2010. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2010.00413.xGoogle Scholar
  26. Locker D, Quinonez C: Functional and psychosocial impacts of oral disorders in Canadian adults: a national population survey. J Can Dent Assoc 2009, 75: 521–521e.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. McNally M, Lyons R: The silent epidemic of oral disease: evaluating continuity of care and policies for the oral health care of seniors. Oral health of seniors project: CHSRF final report. 2004. Available at:http://www.ahprc.dal.ca/oralhealth/WebPageReports.htmGoogle Scholar
  28. Marvin M: Access to care for seniors – dental concerns. J Can Dent Assoc 2001, 67(9):505–506.Google Scholar
  29. Ratzan S, Parker R: Introduction. In National library of medicine current bibliographies in medicine: Health literacy (pp. v-vi). NLM Pub. No. CBM 2000–1. Edited by: Selden C, Zorn M, Ratzan S. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. Available at:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20061214/pubs/cbm/hliteracy.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. Wister A, Malloy-Weir L, Rootman I, Desjardins R: Lifelong educational practices and resources in enabling health literacy among older adults. J Aging Health 2010, 22(6):827–854. 10.1177/0898264310373502View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Canadian Public Health Association: National Literacy and Health Program. Good medicine for seniors: Guidelines for plain language and good design in prescription medicine. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 2002. Available at:http://www.nlhp.cpha.ca/Labels/seniors/english/GoodMed-E.pdfGoogle Scholar
  32. adian Council on Learning: Health Literacy in Canada. A healthy understanding. Ottawa. 2008. Available at:http://www.ccl-cca.ca/NR/rdonlyres/266E0889–8B9B-45DB-B615–331E146E31B06/0/HealthLiteracyReportFeb2008E.pdfGoogle Scholar
  33. Horowitz A, Kleinman D: Oral health literacy: the new imperative to better oral healt. Dent Clin North Am 2008, 52(2):333–44. vi--44, vi 10.1016/j.cden.2007.12.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rozier R, Horowitz A, Podschun G: Dentist-patient communication techniques used in the United States. The results of a national survey. J Am Dent Assoc 2011, 142(5):518–530.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rootman I: Literacy and health in Canada: is it really a problem? Can J Public Health 2003, 94(6):405–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Bhatti T, Rana Z, Grootendorst P: Dental insurance, income and the use of dental care in Canada. JCDA 2007, 73(1):57a-57h.Google Scholar
  37. Statistics Canada: Educational Portrait of Canada, 2006 Census. Census year 2006. Minister of Industry. 2008. Catalogue no. 97–560-X Available at:http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97–560/pdf/97–560-XIE2006001.pdfGoogle Scholar
  38. Federal Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health: Toward a healthy future: Second report on the health of Canadians. Government of Canada. 1999. Available at:http://www.injuryresearch.bc.ca/admin/DocUpload/3_20061214_101307toward_a_healthy_english.pdfGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabbah W, Leake J: Comparing charactersitics of Canadians who visited dentists and physicians during 1993/94: A secondary analysis. J Can Dent Assoc 2000, 66: 90–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wyatt C: A 5-year follow up of older adults residing in long- term care facilities: utilization of a comprehensive dental programme. Gerodontology 2009, 26: 282–290. 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00305.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kotzer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement