Urban-rural differences in dental caries of 5-year old children in Scotland
Previous research suggests there are significant differences between urban and rural areas in Scotland for health outcomes including heart disease, cancer and self reported health. The aim of this study was to describe the contemporary urban/rural variation in obvious decay experience amongst 5-year-olds in Scotland. Scotland was split into 6 geographies, ranging from 'The 4 Cities' (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen) to 'Remote Rural' areas. Data derived from the 2007/08 National Dental Inspection Programme, representative of the whole of Scotland, were modelled using Bayesian multilevel zero-inflated Negative Binomial and multilevel Poisson modelling, adjusting for age, sex and deprivation. The outcome variables modelled were d3mft (carious, extracted or filled deciduous teeth), d3t (carious teeth), mt (missing teeth, extracted due to caries) and ft (filled teeth). The proportion of 5-year old children in Scotland with d3mft = 0 was 58% in 2008. Adjusting for age and sex, the odds of a child in a Remote Rural area having d3mft>0 was 0.52 that of a city dweller. However, when deprivation was included in the model, the odds of having d3mft >0 rose to 0.74. The odds of d3mft>0 in 'Accessible Rural' areas also remained significantly lower than in the 4 Cities after adjustment for deprivation. For those with d3mft>0, the relative risk of additional d3mft was also significantly lower in Remote Rural areas, however this was explained by deprivation, while in Accessible Rural areas this remained significant even after adjustment for deprivation. The odds of having any extractions was lower in Rural areas, even after adjustment for deprivation, while the Care Index (ft/d3mft) was higher in Remote Towns. Deprivation, therefore, accounted for much but not all of the geographical difference in d3mft which exist in Scotland. Children in Remote and Rural areas appear to have better dental health and a higher proportion of filled teeth when compared with those living in Cities. Possible reasons for these differences and recommendations for future research are discussed.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 71 (2010)
Issue (Month): 11 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:11:p:2020-2027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.