Psychometric properties of an oral health literacy scale for people living with diabetes.

This study evaluated the construct validity of the instrument Oral Health Literacy among diabetics. A probabilistic random sample of 239 diabetics from an infinite population answered the 10 items of the questionnaire. The structural validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and goodness of fit, chi-square per degrees of freedom ratio (X2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Internal consistency was estimated by the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The scores were dichotomized with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval as the cutoff point. The three-dimensional model presented good quality parameters (X2 /df = 2.459; CFI = 0.988; TLI = 0.981) and poor RMSEA (0.078). Internal consistency was adequate; AVE for the Access, Understand/appraise, and Apply subscales were 0.831, 0.981, and 0.954 and the CR for these subscales were 0.893, 0.962, and 0.822, respectively. Inadequate literacy ranged from 41.8 to 48.1%. The three-dimensional model identified (access, understand/appraise, and apply) showed structural validity, good internal consistency, and understandability.

Knowledge of bidirectional relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease among diabetes patients: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The bidirectional relationship between diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease has been reported in the literature, suggesting that poor glycemic control is strongly associated with increased risk of developing periodontal disease. Therefore, this systematic review evaluated the level of knowledge of this bidirectional relationship among patients with diabetes. METHODS: This systematic review (protocol CRD42018117902) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The following databases were considered: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search strategy (April 05th , 2021) considered proper combination of keywords and eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). RESULTS: Among the 328 records identified in the initial search, 24 studies were selected, considering a total of 8,693 patients. All studies used a cross-sectional design. Among the included studies, only five showed prevalence of knowledge higher than 50%, ranging from 5.8% to 75.9%. Interestingly, 58.0% of patients reported that they brush their teeth at least 1x/day, but only four studies reported that the dentist was the main source of information. In terms of methodology and result quality, just one study clearly showed all information evaluated by the AXIS tool. Most of studies did not report sample size calculations and did not used validated questionnaires to assess patient knowledge. CONCLUSION: The results show that less than half of people with diabetes have knowledge about their increased risk for periodontal disease, and often the dentist is not the main source of information to motivate them.

Psychometric properties of an oral health literacy scale for people living with diabetes

Abstract This study evaluated the construct validity of the instrument Oral Health Literacy among diabetics. A probabilistic random sample of 239 diabetics from an infinite population answered the 10 items of the questionnaire. The structural validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and goodness of fit, chi-square per degrees of freedom ratio (X2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Internal consistency was estimated by the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The scores were dichotomized with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval as the cutoff point. The three-dimensional model presented good quality parameters (X2 /df = 2.459; CFI = 0.988; TLI = 0.981) and poor RMSEA (0.078). Internal consistency was adequate; AVE for the Access, Understand/appraise, and Apply subscales were 0.831, 0.981, and 0.954 and the CR for these subscales were 0.893, 0.962, and 0.822, respectively. Inadequate literacy ranged from 41.8 to 48.1%. The three-dimensional model identified (access, understand/appraise, and apply) showed structural validity, good internal consistency, and understandability.