Background

This scoping review reports on studies that collect survey data using quantitative research to measure self-reported oral health status outcome measures. The objective of this review is to categorize measures used to evaluate self-reported oral health status and oral health quality of life used in surveys of general populations.

Methods

The review is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) with the search on four online bibliographic databases. The criteria include (1) peer-reviewed articles, (2) papers published between 2011 and 2021, (3) only studies using quantitative methods, and (4) containing outcome measures of self-assessed oral health status, and/or oral health-related quality of life. All survey data collection methods are assessed and papers whose methods employ newer technological approaches are also identified.

Results

Of the 2981 unduplicated papers, 239 meet the eligibility criteria. Half of the papers use impact scores such as the OHIP-14; 10% use functional measures, such as the GOHAI, and 26% use two or more measures while 8% use rating scales of oral health status. The review identifies four data collection methods: in-person, mail-in, Internet-based, and telephone surveys. Most (86%) employ in-person surveys, and 39% are conducted in Asia-Pacific and Middle East countries with 8% in North America. Sixty-six percent of the studies recruit participants directly from clinics and schools, where the surveys were carried out. The top three sampling methods are convenience sampling (52%), simple random sampling (12%), and stratified sampling (12%). Among the four data collection methods, in-person surveys have the highest response rate (91%), while the lowest response rate occurs in Internet-based surveys (37%). Telephone surveys are used to cover a wider population compared to other data collection methods. There are two noteworthy approaches: 1) sample selection where researchers employ different platforms to access subjects, and 2) mode of interaction with subjects, with the use of computers to collect self-reported data.

Conclusion

The study provides an assessment of oral health outcome measures, including subject-reported oral health status and notes newly emerging computer technological approaches recently used in surveys conducted on general populations. These newer applications, though rarely used, hold promise for both researchers and the various populations that use or need oral health care.

Objectives

Surveys can assist in screening oral diseases in populations to enhance the early detection of disease and intervention strategies for children in need. This paper aims to develop short forms of child-report and proxy-report survey screening instruments for active dental caries and urgent treatment needs in school-age children.

Methods

This cross-sectional study recruited 497 distinct dyads of children aged 8-17 and their parents between 2015 to 2019 from 14 dental clinics and private practices in Los Angeles County. We evaluated responses to 88 child-reported and 64 proxy-reported oral health questions to select and calibrate short forms using Item Response Theory. Seven classical Machine Learning algorithms were employed to predict children's active caries and urgent treatment needs using the short forms together with family demographic variables. The candidate algorithms include CatBoost, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Naïve Bayes, Neural Network, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. Predictive performance was assessed using repeated 5-fold nested cross-validations.

Results

We developed and calibrated four ten-item short forms. Naïve Bayes outperformed other algorithms with the highest median of cross-validated area under the ROC curve. The means of best testing sensitivities and specificities using both child-reported and proxy-reported responses were 0.84 and 0.30 for active caries, and 0.81 and 0.31 for urgent treatment needs respectively. Models incorporating both response types showed a slightly higher predictive accuracy than those relying on either child-reported or proxy-reported responses.

Conclusions

The combination of Item Response Theory and Machine Learning algorithms yielded potentially useful screening instruments for both active caries and urgent treatment needs of children. The survey screening approach is relatively cost-effective and convenient when dealing with oral health assessment in large populations. Future studies are needed to further leverage the customize and refine the instruments based on the estimated item characteristics for specific subgroups of the populations to enhance predictive accuracy.