IADR Abstract Archives
“Well-being” and “OHQoL” in Children: Relationship Summarized from Current Literature
Objectives: Background: “Well-being” is a keyword newly added to the IADR/AADR mission statement in 2019. “Health-related quality of life (HRQoL)” has been a hot topic for a few decades. Since 2000’s, there have been debates about whether “HRQoL” and “Well-being” are synonymous or not. In 2007, Locker and Allen commented on “What do measures of ‘oral health-related quality of life (OH-QoL)’ measure?” This influential commentary pointed out the “loose way in which terminology is used”, and implied the entangled concepts of “well-being” and “OH-QoL”. This issue is even more troublesome in the field of Children’s Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (COHQoL).
Objectives: To summarize the relationship between the two key concepts of “Well-being” and “COHQoL” in current literature.
Methods: Methods: Based on three reviews of COHQoL measures in 2019, with additional search, I identified the currently available measures. Then, I securitized their dimensions and items, and summarized the relationship between “well-being” and “COHQoL” in these measures.
Results: Results: In total, I identified 29 unique “COHQoL” measures, 27 from the three reviews. Four measures had a target construct named other than “COHQoL”, such as “utility”, “pain”, and “oral health”. The number of dimensions ranged from one to nine, averaged 3.3, totaled in 97; and the number of items ranged from five to 43, averaged 16.0, totaled in 465. Within a single dimension, the number of items ranged from one to thirteen. And among these total 97 dimensions, 22 (22.3%) had “well-being” in their names. However, at the item level, there were overlaps between the dimensions with and without “well-being” in the names.
Conclusions: Conclusion: In conclusion, currently “well-being” and “COHQoL” are very much entangled concepts. Further investigation on how “well-being” and “COHQoL” interplays each other, consensus on the terminology, and how these two key concepts shall be accurately defined and measured, are needed.
Objectives: To summarize the relationship between the two key concepts of “Well-being” and “COHQoL” in current literature.
Methods: Methods: Based on three reviews of COHQoL measures in 2019, with additional search, I identified the currently available measures. Then, I securitized their dimensions and items, and summarized the relationship between “well-being” and “COHQoL” in these measures.
Results: Results: In total, I identified 29 unique “COHQoL” measures, 27 from the three reviews. Four measures had a target construct named other than “COHQoL”, such as “utility”, “pain”, and “oral health”. The number of dimensions ranged from one to nine, averaged 3.3, totaled in 97; and the number of items ranged from five to 43, averaged 16.0, totaled in 465. Within a single dimension, the number of items ranged from one to thirteen. And among these total 97 dimensions, 22 (22.3%) had “well-being” in their names. However, at the item level, there were overlaps between the dimensions with and without “well-being” in the names.
Conclusions: Conclusion: In conclusion, currently “well-being” and “COHQoL” are very much entangled concepts. Further investigation on how “well-being” and “COHQoL” interplays each other, consensus on the terminology, and how these two key concepts shall be accurately defined and measured, are needed.
