A Study on Oral Health Awareness and Oral Health Behavior Factors for the Elderly over 65 in Some Areas
Ji-Yeon Kwak1, Cheon-Hee Lee2
1Department of Social Welfare Graduate School of Konkuk University, Seoul, 2Department of Dental Hygiene, Andong Sciences College, Andong, Korea
Received September 29, 2022; Revised September 29, 2022; Accepted September 30, 2022.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- Abstract
- Objective: Considering the need for oral health in the elderly, and analyzing factors and practices affecting the oral health of the elderly based on this, an in-depth theoretical review was conducted to analyze the factors affecting the oral health of the elderly on life in old age.
Methods: The data collection for this study was conducted from October 7 to November 20, 2013 in Nowon-gu. People over 65 who visit local general hospitals, individual internal medicine clinics, and individual dental clinics. After explaining the purpose, content and purpose of this study to the elderly, consent. It is difficult to read the text as a questionnaire in a total of five structured chapters targeting only one person. The interview was conducted in the form of an interview in consideration of the characteristics.
Results: As for the general characteristics of all respondents, in terms of gender, 29 male respondents (41.4%) and 41 female respondents (58.6%) were oral health perception factors, oral health behavior factors, and the meaning of life according to academic background. It was found that the higher the educational level, the more positive the perception of the meaning of life.
Conclusion: Tooth brushing education and oral health education for preventive management of oral diseases. Policies and policies that enable the elderly related to health promotion to receive education easily and conveniently. It is necessary to find a method, and the accessibility of the medical period is also convenient to use. I should be able to get dental care easily. - Keywords : oral health, satisfaction with life, national health policy
- Introduction
In recent years, the elderly population is rapidly increasing due to the extension of life expectancy worldwide.
is increasing the dictionary meaning of the word old is a person who is old and old. In general, normal social life due to decline in physical, psychological, social, and functioning. A person who experiences difficulties in carrying out. Accor-ding to the Elderly Welfare Act enacted in 1981, people aged 65 and over are referred to as the elderly. In Korea, the average life expectancy in 1960 was 53 years for men and 57.8 years for women. The number of males increased rapidly to 67.1 years and females 73.6 years. In 2000, for the first time in 2000, the population aged 65 and over exceeded 7% of the total population, creating an aging society classified by the United Nations. In 2018, the elderly population in Korea accounted for 14% of the total population is expected to be. In an aging society, the number of elderly people increases. It refers to an increase in the proportion of the elderly in the ward, and in an aging society, 14% of the population aged 65 years or older is more than 7% of the total population. The United Nations defines it as an aged society if it is above 20% and a super-aged society if it is above 20%. Among the health and medical problems related to the health of the elderly, it is important to live a happy life. One of the factors is oral health. The oral cavity is a place where systemic diseases and vaginal. If oral health is poor by ingesting nutrition through in order to cultivate people’s sense of value and responsibility for health. To disseminate knowledge and create conditions for people to practice a healthy life on their own, according to Article 23 of the National Health Promotion Act, which aims to promote the health of for dental home filling business, fluoride solution brushing business, for the promotion of oral health. You can understand the importance of oral health, such as projects prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare [1]. In a survey asking about the importance of oral health, the percentage of respondents who answered that oral health was the most important than any other problem was 19.8% aged 20-29 years, 41.7% aged 40-49 years, 60 aged [2]. Among them, oral health for the elderly can determine the overall health status [3]. If you have poor oral health, you may not be able to chew food well, which lowers the digestive function and directly affects the anorexia of the elderly. Changes in the digestive system and slowing and activity of sensory organs such as taste and smell because of the decrease in volume. In particular, the decrease in taste function, along with decreased salivation and tooth loss, has the greatest effect on food intake in the elderly.
According to a study by a Danish research team published in the American Journal of Gerontology, older people.
If this dental care is not done properly, aging is accelerated and cognitive function deteriorates was reported to be.
According to a study by a Danish research team published in the American Journal of Gerontology, older people. If this dental care is not done properly, aging is accelerated and cognitive function deteriorates was reported to be loss of teeth affects the pronunciation and appearance of interpersonal relationships and it limits the smooth social life and promotes social isolation and isolation. Tooth loss can affect an indivi-dual’s quality of life because it causes [4]. The representative diseases of oral health are dental caries and periodontal disease. It is one of the most common diseases in our body [5].
Oral health is a very important and essential element for maintaining health of the elderly [6], and it has been reported that oral hygiene is essential as a health indicator for the elderly [7]. Since the improvement of health and quality of life is emerging as an important social concern [8], and in particular, the improvement of oral health is closely related to the improvement of the quality of life. The Health Act guarantees the minimum legal basis and system for planning and implementing a systematic oral health project at the government level [9]. The purpose of this study is to identify and study the oral health conditions of the elderly over 65 years of age. In addition to strong health, we collect countermeasures to manage a better quality of life i want to color it [10].
- Materials and Methods
1. Subjects
Considering the need for oral health in the elderly, and analyzing factors and practices affecting the oral health of the elderly.
This is an in-depth theoretical review of the topic, and based on the theoretical background, it is an empirical analysis of the factors affecting the oral health of the elderly on their life in old age.
In addition, the purpose of this study is to find alternatives to improve the oral care and quality of life of the elderly based on the results of empirical analysis.
2. Experimental method
Subjective oral health status, oral health knowledge, and management practices of the elderly, centered on the elderly 65 years and older living in Nowon-gu, are related to oral health. In November 2013, he visited a dental and general hospital to find out about the impact was conducted through questionnaires to the patients.
The tools used in this study were Park [4], Bae [5], Woo [6], etc. Combination of questionnaires whose reliability was evaluated in previous research data for the purpose of this study did. In this study, demographic and social characteristics (gender, age, education years, Bowel level ) Oral health cognitive factors include tooth extraction, scaling, denture storage, and oral health. The factors affecting strong health were the experience of regular visits to the dentist for preventive purposes, and the
Dental visit experience, number of times of tooth brushing, experience of tooth brushing education, use of oral products. It is composed of whether or not the and each item was measured on a 5-point scale.
3. Statistics
According to the general characteristics of the respondents, oral health and quality of life. In order to analyze whether there is a difference in the perception of this Independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for through this, gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, oral health status.
To find out whether there is a difference in the perception of the factors affecting the quality of life of the elderly according to the type we want to see.
- Results
1. Analysis of demographic and sociological characteristics of survey subjects
As for the general characteristics of gender, there were 29 male respondents (41.4%) and 41 female respondents (58.6%), indicating that female respondents accounted for a rather high proportion. 29 (41.4%) showed the largest distribution.
In addition, as for educational background, 22 respondents (31.4%) had elementary school graduation or less, and 19 people (27.1%) graduated from middle school (Table 1).
-
Table 1 . General characteristics of respondents
Item Division N % Gender Man 29 41.4 Woman 41 58.6 Total 70 100.0 Age 65> 6 8.6 65≤, <70 29 41.4 70≤,<80 26 37.1 80≤ 9 12.9 Total 70 100.0 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 31.4 Middle school graduation 19 27.1 High school graduation 15 21.4 University graduation 14 20.0 Total 70 100.0 Religion Buddhism 17 24.3 Catholic 5 7.1 Christian 24 34.3 Atheism 20 28.6 Etc 4 5.7 Total 70 100.0 Family type Alone 9 12.9 Couple only 25 35.7 Live with children 33 47.1 Etc 3 4.3 Total 70 100.0 Physical health Bad 13 18.6 Usually 33 47.1 Good 24 34.3 Total 70 100.0 Oral health Bad 22 31.4 Usually 39 55.7 Good 9 12.9 Total 70 100.0
2. Analysis of difference in perception of oral health cognitive factors
1) Differences in perception on common sense of denture managementIt was 4.88 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents.
There was no statistically significant difference among respondents regarding common sense of denture management in gender, age, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status (p<.05) (Table 2-1).
-
Table 2 -1. Differences in perception of common sense of denture management
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Common sense of denture care Gender Man 29 1.93 0.456 −0.309 0.758 Woman 41 1.97 0.494 Age 65> 6 2.12 0.204 0.794 0.501 65≤, <70 29 2.00 0.421 70≤,<80 26 1.85 0.464 80≤ 9 2.00 0.750 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.68 0.451 4.888 0.004 Middle school graduation 19 2.11 0.394 High school graduation 15 2.18 0.359 University graduation 14 1.93 0.548 Religion Buddhism 17 2.04 0.276 0.759 0.556 Catholic 5 2.20 0.570 Christian 24 1.92 0.525 Atheism 20 1.85 0.540 Etc 4 2.00 0.408 Family type Alone 9 1.94 0.583 0.063 0.979 Couple only 25 1.98 0.509 Live with children 33 1.93 0.455 Etc 3 2.00 0.000 Physical health Bad 13 1.96 0.320 0.213 0.808 Usually 33 1.92 0.460 Good 24 2.00 0.571 Oral health Bad 22 1.85 0.501 1.434 0.246 Usually 39 2.04 0.478 Good 9 1.83 0.354
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 8.941 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents. In the analysis according to family type, the F value was 2.866 (p<.05) showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 2-2).
-
Table 2-2. Differences in perception of common sense related to tooth extraction
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Common sense about tooth extraction Gender Man 29 2.02 0.773 0.028 0.978 Woman 41 2.01 0.711 Age 65> 6 2.58 0.801 1.437 0.240 65≤, <70 29 2.00 0.655 70≤,<80 26 1.90 0.735 80≤ 9 2.00 0.866 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.45 0.635 8.941 0.000 Middle school graduation 19 2.13 0.642 High school graduation 15 2.33 0.724 University graduation 14 2.39 0.487 Religion Buddhism 17 1.88 0.674 1.625 0.179 Catholic 5 2.60 0.548 Christian 24 2.17 0.789 Atheism 20 1.83 0.634 Etc 4 1.88 1.031 Family type Alone 9 1.56 0.583 2.866 0.043 Couple only 25 1.90 0.722 Live with children 33 2.17 0.725 Etc 3 2.67 0.577 Physical health Bad 13 1.96 0.776 0.066 0.936 Usually 33 2.05 0.711 Good 24 2.00 0.766 Oral health Bad 22 1.98 0.715 0.438 0.647 Usually 39 2.08 0.748 Good 9 1.83 0.750
In classification according to gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status, there was no statistically significant difference between respondents on common sense of gum care (p<.05) (Table 2-3).
-
Table 2-3. Differences in perception of common sense of gum care
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Gum care common sense Gender Man 29 1.93 0.530 −0.269 0.789 Woman 41 1.97 0.562 Age 65> 6 2.11 0.464 0.206 0.892 65≤, <70 29 1.95 0.569 70≤,<80 26 1.91 0.554 80≤ 9 1.96 0.564 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.91 0.556 0.170 0.916 Middle school graduation 19 1.98 0.613 High school graduation 15 1.91 0.347 University graduation 14 2.02 0.647 Religion Buddhism 17 2.02 0.522 0.703 0.593 Catholic 5 2.07 0.760 Christian 24 2.03 0.581 Atheism 20 1.78 0.510 Etc 4 1.92 0.319 Family type Alone 9 1.96 0.539 0.343 0.794 Couple only 25 1.89 0.542 Live with children 33 1.97 0.568 Etc 3 2.22 0.509 Physical health Bad 13 2.10 0.370 0.651 0.525 Usually 33 1.90 0.638 Good 24 1.94 0.488 Oral health Bad 22 1.91 0.576 0.229 0.796 Usually 39 1.99 0.554 Good 9 1.89 0.471
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 4.054 (p<.05), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 2-4).
-
Table 2-4. Differences in perception of common sense related to gaping teeth
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Common knowledge about teeth gaping Gender Man 29 2.00 0.720 −0.619 0.538 Woman 41 2.11 0.737 Age 65> 6 2.42 0.801 0.895 0.449 65≤, <70 29 2.12 0.677 70≤, <80 26 2.00 0.812 80≤ 9 1.83 0.559 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.66 0.777 4.054 0.010 Middle school graduation 19 2.18 0.628 High school graduation 15 2.20 0.751 University graduation 14 2.39 0.487 Religion Buddhism 17 2.00 0.848 3.778 0.008 Catholic 5 2.70 0.447 Christian 24 2.33 0.717 Atheism 20 1.70 0.523 Etc 4 1.75 0.289 Family type Alone 9 1.44 0.682 2.789 0.047 Couple only 25 2.20 0.677 Live with children 33 2.14 0.742 Etc 3 2.00 0.000 Physical health Bad 13 1.88 0.682 0.545 0.582 Usually 33 2.08 0.751 Good 24 2.15 0.729 Oral health Bad 22 2.09 0.648 0.516 0.599 Usually 39 2.10 0.771 Good 9 1.83 0.750
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to gender, the t value was −2.753 (p<.01), indicating that there was no statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents.
Appeared to be in classification according to age, educational background, family type, and physical health status.
No statistically significant difference among respondents for health insurance coverage (p<.05) (Table 2-5).
-
Table 2-5. Differences in recognition of medical insurance coverage
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Medical insurance coverage range Gender Man 29 2.17 0.966 −2.753 0.009 Woman 41 2.73 0.596 Age 65> 6 2.83 0.408 1.825 0.151 65≤, <70 29 2.62 0.775 70≤, <80 26 2.46 0.811 80≤ 9 1.99 1.001 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.27 0.935 1.498 0.223 Middle school graduation 19 2.41 0.841 High school graduation 15 2.80 0.561 University graduation 14 2.64 0.745 Religion Buddhism 17 2.82 0.540 2.149 0.085 Catholic 5 2.40 0.894 Christian 24 2.63 0.770 Atheism 20 2.10 0.912 Etc 4 2.50 1.000 Family type Alone 9 2.32 0.872 0.737 0.534 Couple only 25 2.40 0.913 Live with children 33 2.58 0.751 Etc 3 3.00 0.000 Physical health Bad 13 2.77 0.439 2.060 0.135 Usually 33 2.30 0.919 Good 24 2.63 0.770 Oral health Bad 22 2.73 0.703 2.694 0.075 Usually 39 2.48 0.793 Good 9 2.00 1.000
3. Analysis of differences in perception of oral health behavior factors
1) Differences in perception of regular oral examinationsIn the analysis according to educational background, the F value was 3.270 (p<.05), indicating that respondents’ perception.
It was found that there was a statistically significant dif-ference. In terms of physical health, the F value was 2.532 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 3-1).
-
Table 3-1. Differences in awareness of regular oral examination
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Oral regular check-up Gender Man 29 1.45 0.506 −1.126 0.264 Woman 41 1.59 0.499 Age 65> 6 1.67 0.516 0.750 0.526 65≤, <70 29 1.59 0.501 70≤, <80 26 1.50 0.510 80≤ 9 1.33 0.500 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.27 0.456 3.270 0.027 Middle school graduation 19 1.58 0.507 High school graduation 15 1.67 0.488 University graduation 14 1.71 0.469 Religion Buddhism 17 1.59 0.507 5.510 0.001 Catholic 5 2.00 0.000 Christian 24 1.71 0.464 Atheism 20 1.20 0.410 Etc 4 1.25 0.500 Family type Alone 9 1.22 0.441 2.863 0.043 Couple only 25 1.60 0.500 Live with children 33 1.61 0.496 Etc 3 1.00 0.000 Physical health Bad 13 1.38 0.506 2.532 0.087 Usually 33 1.45 0.506 Good 24 1.71 0.464 Oral health Bad 22 1.59 0.503 0.308 0.736 Usually 39 1.51 0.506 Good 9 1.44 0.527
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 2.193 (p< .1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the respondents’ perception. p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 3-2).
-
Table 3-2. Differences in recognition of scaling regular treatment
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Scaling regular treatment Gender Man 29 1.41 0.568 −1.216 0.228 Woman 41 1.59 0.591 Age 65> 6 1.50 0.548 0.057 0.982 65≤, <70 29 1.48 0.509 70≤, <80 26 1.54 0.582 80≤ 9 1.56 0.882 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.27 0.456 2.193 0.097 Middle school graduation 19 1.58 0.507 High school graduation 15 1.73 0.704 University graduation 14 1.57 0.646 Religion Buddhism 17 1.65 0.606 3.962 0.006 Catholic 5 1.60 0.548 Christian 24 1.75 0.608 Atheism 20 1.15 0.366 Etc 4 1.25 0.500 Family type Alone 9 1.22 0.441 1.381 0.256 Couple only 25 1.48 0.510 Live with children 33 1.64 0.653 Etc 3 1.33 0.577 Physical health Bad 13 1.38 0.506 8.637 0.000 Usually 33 1.30 0.467 Good 24 1.88 0.612 Oral health Bad 22 1.68 0.716 1.336 0.270 Usually 39 1.44 0.502 Good 9 1.44 0.527
The F value was 2.91 (p<.1) in the analysis of cognitive differences between groups according to age, the F value was 8.37 (p<.01) in the analysis according to educational background, and the F value was 5.617 (p<.01) in the analysis according to religion. To the perceptions of respondents it was found that there was a statistically significant difference (Table 3-3).
-
Table 3-3. Differences in recognition of brushing frequenc
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Brushing frequency Gender Man 29 2.45 0.870 −0.828 0.410 Woman 41 2.66 1.153 Age 65> 6 3.33 1.033 2.291 0.086 65≤, <70 29 2.66 1.010 70≤, <80 26 2.23 0.992 80≤ 9 2.78 1.093 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.09 0.811 8.337 0.000 Middle school graduation 19 2.16 0.765 High school graduation 15 3.07 0.961 University graduation 14 3.36 1.151 Religion Buddhism 17 2.35 0.862 5.617 0.001 Catholic 5 4.20 1.304 Christian 24 2.79 0.932 Atheism 20 2.20 0.834 Etc 4 2.00 1.155 Family type Alone 9 1.67 0.866 2.984 0.037 Couple only 25 2.68 0.748 Live with children 33 2.76 1.173 Etc 3 2.33 1.155 Physical health Bad 13 1.92 0.760 3.347 0.041 Usually 33 2.76 1.200 Good 24 2.67 0.816 Oral health Bad 22 2.77 0.922 2.470 0.092 Usually 39 2.62 1.138 Good 9 1.89 0.601
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 10.855 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 3-4).
-
Table 3-4. Differences in perception of brushing teeth after meals
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Brushing teeth after meals Gender Man 29 2.05 0.665 −1.243 0.218 Woman 41 2.24 0.650 Age 65> 6 2.50 0.837 0.702 0.554 65≤, <70 29 2.10 0.643 70≤, <80 26 2.12 0.573 80≤ 9 2.26 0.846 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.80 0.541 10.855 0.000 Middle school graduation 19 1.91 0.586 High school graduation 15 2.49 0.628 University graduation 14 2.71 0.410 Religion Buddhism 17 2.04 0.525 4.247 0.004 Catholic 5 2.73 0.596 Christian 24 2.44 0.619 Atheism 20 1.83 0.626 Etc 4 1.92 0.739 Family type Alone 9 1.89 0.408 0.965 0.415 Couple only 25 2.11 0.591 Live with children 33 2.25 0.750 Etc 3 2.44 0.694 Physical health Bad 13 2.08 0.512 0.278 0.758 Usually 33 2.22 0.705 Good 24 2.13 0.680 Oral health Bad 22 2.21 0.702 0.666 0.517 Usually 39 2.19 0.652 Good 9 1.93 0.596
In the analysis according to religion, the F-value was 3.629 (p<.05), which was consistent with the perception of the respondents.
There was a statistically significant difference, and in the analysis according to family type, the F value was 5.990 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents. In addition, in the classification according to their oral health status, the F value was 2.444 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (p<.05) (Table 3-5).
-
Table 3-5. Differences in perception of oral hygiene habits
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Oral hygiene habits Gender Man 29 1.79 0.590 −0.619 0.538 Woman 41 1.88 0.604 Age 65> 6 2.17 0.606 1.300 0.282 65≤, <70 29 1.89 0.613 70≤, <80 26 1.69 0.601 80≤ 9 1.94 0.464 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 1.66 0.643 1.444 0.238 Middle school graduation 19 1.88 0.650 High school graduation 15 1.87 0.442 University graduation 14 2.07 0.550 Religion Buddhism 17 1.74 0.615 3.629 0.010 Catholic 5 1.90 0.652 Christian 24 2.17 0.282 Atheism 20 1.64 0.678 Etc 4 1.38 0.750 Family type Alone 9 1.22 0.441 5.990 0.001 Couple only 25 1.98 0.549 Live with children 33 1.85 0.571 Etc 3 2.50 0.000 Physical health Bad 13 1.67 0.675 1.480 0.235 Usually 33 1.80 0.637 Good 24 2.00 0.466 Oral health Bad 22 1.91 0.590 2.444 0.095 Usually 39 1.90 0.602 Good 9 1.44 0.464
4. Analysis of difference in perception of quality of life
1) Differences in perception of daily life satisfactionThe F value according to educational background was 2.641 (p<.1), and the F value for physical health was 2.900 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (p<.05) (Table 4-1).
-
Table 4-1. Differences in perception of daily life satisfaction
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Daily life satisfaction Gender Man 29 2.97 1.085 0.482 0.632 Woman 41 2.86 0.693 Age 65> 6 3.00 0.632 1.465 0.232 65≤, <70 29 3.14 0.789 70≤, <80 26 2.70 0.930 80≤ 9 2.68 1.005 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.50 0.802 2.641 0.057 Middle school graduation 19 3.06 0.970 High school graduation 15 3.01 0.655 University graduation 14 3.22 0.891 Religion Buddhism 17 3.12 0.600 0.635 0.639 Catholic 5 2.80 0.447 Christian 24 2.97 0.860 Atheism 20 2.75 1.164 Etc 4 2.53 0.609 Family type Alone 9 2.44 0.726 1.525 0.216 Couple only 25 3.04 1.020 Live with children 33 2.98 0.771 Etc 3 2.37 0.638 Physical health Bad 13 2.55 0.882 2.900 0.062 Usually 33 2.82 0.684 Good 24 3.21 1.020 Oral health Bad 22 2.91 0.812 0.003 0.997 Usually 39 2.90 0.853 Good 9 2.89 1.167
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to gender, the t value was 2.144 (p<.05), confirming that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents, and classification according to age, religion, family type, and type of oral health status. Showed that there was no statistically significant difference between respondents in terms of physical health satisfaction (p<.05) (Table 4-2).
-
Table 4-2. Differences in perception of satisfaction with physical health
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Satisfaction with physical health Gender Man 29 3.07 0.799 2.144 0.036 Woman 41 2.69 0.692 Age 65> 6 3.00 0.632 0.403 0.751 65≤, <70 29 2.94 0.652 70≤, <80 26 2.74 0.830 80≤ 9 2.80 0.978 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.50 0.740 2.678 0.054 Middle school graduation 19 2.90 0.811 High school graduation 15 3.08 0.594 University graduation 14 3.08 0.730 Religion Buddhism 17 2.94 0.748 0.572 0.684 Catholic 5 2.80 0.447 Christian 24 2.97 0.753 Atheism 20 2.70 0.865 Etc 4 2.54 0.628 Family type Alone 9 2.33 0.707 1.743 0.167 Couple only 25 2.92 0.812 Live with children 33 2.95 0.706 Etc 3 2.72 0.630 Physical health Bad 13 2.40 0.665 8.797 0.000 Usually 33 2.70 0.589 Good 24 3.30 0.805 Oral health Bad 22 3.01 0.618 0.811 0.449 Usually 39 2.75 0.719 Good 9 2.89 1.167
In the analysis according to educational background, the F value was 5.803 (p<.01), indicating that there is a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 4-3).
-
Table 4-3. Differences in recognition of leisure life satisfaction
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Leisure life satisfaction Gender Man 29 3.04 1.349 0.256 0.799 Woman 41 2.95 1.341 Age 65> 6 3.34 0.514 0.950 0.422 65≤, <70 29 3.10 1.398 70≤, <80 26 2.65 1.355 80≤ 9 3.34 1.414 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.14 1.207 5.803 0.001 Middle school graduation 19 3.11 1.329 High school graduation 15 3.47 1.125 University graduation 14 3.64 1.150 Religion Buddhism 17 3.30 1.263 0.884 0.479 Catholic 5 3.20 1.095 Christian 24 3.13 1.484 Atheism 20 2.55 1.317 Etc 4 2.75 0.959 Family type Alone 9 2.33 1.118 1.290 0.285 Couple only 25 3.32 1.492 Live with children 33 2.91 1.259 Etc 3 3.01 1.000 Physical health Bad 13 2.54 1.331 1.396 0.255 Usually 33 2.94 1.144 Good 24 3.29 1.546 Oral health Bad 22 2.96 1.463 1.409 0.252 Usually 39 3.15 1.309 Good 9 2.33 1.000
There was no statistically significant difference between respondents in interpersonal satisfaction in all classifications according to gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status (p<.05) (Table 4-4).
-
Table 4-4. Differences in recognition of interpersonal satisfaction
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Interpersonal satisfaction Gender Man 29 3.61 0.978 0.701 0.486 Woman 41 3.44 1.012 Age 65> 6 3.57 1.134 1.870 0.143 65≤, <70 29 3.82 1.105 70≤, <80 26 3.21 0.728 80≤ 9 3.38 1.065 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 3.25 0.788 1.378 0.257 Middle school graduation 19 3.60 1.143 High school graduation 15 3.89 1.014 University graduation 14 3.41 1.012 Religion Buddhism 17 3.32 0.889 1.822 0.135 Catholic 5 3.08 1.154 Christian 24 3.70 1.042 Atheism 20 3.75 0.967 Etc 4 2.60 0.490 Family type Alone 9 3.11 0.782 0.719 0.544 Couple only 25 3.68 1.069 Live with children 33 3.50 0.970 Etc 3 3.47 1.361 Physical health Bad 13 3.34 0.995 0.687 0.507 Usually 33 3.45 0.970 Good 24 3.70 1.042 Oral health Bad 22 3.45 0.909 0.656 0.522 Usually 39 3.62 1.077 Good 9 3.22 0.833
In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 8.423 (p< .01), confirming that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents. In the analysis by religion, the F value was 2.597 (p<.05). showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 4-5).
-
Table 4-5. Differences in perception of the meaning of life
Variable Item Division N Mean SD F (t) p Meaning of life Gender Man 29 3.16 1.314 −0.006 0.995 Woman 41 3.16 1.396 Age 65> 6 4.14 1.028 1.952 0.130 65≤, <70 29 3.34 1.319 70≤, <80 26 2.80 1.356 80≤ 9 2.98 1.416 Education Less than elementary school graduation 22 2.22 1.188 8.423 0.000 Middle school graduation 19 3.15 1.346 High school graduation 15 3.79 1.093 University graduation 14 3.99 0.976 Religion Buddhism 17 3.46 1.285 2.597 0.044 Catholic 5 2.80 1.095 Christian 24 3.65 1.473 Atheism 20 2.55 1.191 Etc 4 2.45 0.530 Family type Alone 9 2.33 0.866 1.646 0.187 Couple only 25 3.24 1.589 Live with children 33 3.38 1.255 Etc 3 2.61 0.533 Physical health Bad 13 2.60 1.189 3.927 0.024 Usually 33 2.96 1.311 Good 24 3.73 1.337 Oral health Bad 22 3.39 1.375 2.111 0.129 Usually 39 3.22 1.349 Good 9 2.33 1.118
-
- Discussion
With the recent aging of the population, interest in the happiness index and quality of life of the elderly has increased, so oral health is one of the factors that have an absolute influence on a happy life in old age [11].
Old age is a period in which tooth loss rapidly progresses, and proper oral care is necessary to maintain the lifespan of teeth. Due to the weakening of the economic power of the elderly, the burden of medical expenses is high, and among them, dental medical expenses are often ignored because they are invisible from the outside [12].
This study aims to provide basic data on oral health policies and methods and procedures for oral health education by identifying the correlation between oral health status and life satisfaction of the elderly and the days of the week that affect them. The survey was conducted in the form of an interview with the people.
In the study, among 70 people, 29 (41.4%) were male and 41 (58.6%) were female. It shows the distribution, followed by middle school graduates with 19 (27.1%), the second largest share, and by family type, the largest distribution with 33 (47.1%) respondents living with their children. , followed by the respondents living alone (2 people, 35.7%) and those living alone (9 people, 12.9%). The perception of oral health behavior factors differs according to educational background. The higher the educational background, the stronger the tendency to perceive oral health in a positive way. It was confirmed that respondents whose religion is Catholic have the most positive perception about regular oral examinations.
In the classification according to oral health status, your oral health status is average. There were 39 (5.7%) of subjects who answered yes, and took up the largest proportion. Next, 22 subjects answered that their oral condition was on the bad side. People (31.4%) accounted for the second largest proportion, and only 12.9% answered that their oral health was good. According to the National Health Survey [13], the average number of teeth in the elderly over 65 years old is only 12, and more than half of the elderly complain of discomfort due to missing teeth. Tooth loss is a serious problem as it aggravates oral diseases and deteriorates general health. If teeth are left unattended for a long period of time, the mastication [14].
Loss of ability makes it easy to eat only comfortable foods, leading to nutritional imbalance. For the elderly with systemic diseases such as diabetes, tooth loss can cause problems in diet and blood sugar control, exacerbating the disease and increasing the incidence of other complications [15]. Therefore, among the effects of oral health on life in the aging population, oral health is the most fundamental for extending lifespan for the elderly, which affects physical health and further affects the quality of life of the elderly. There is an urgent need for effective management of oral diseases, and policies and methods should be sought for easy and convenient education for the elderly related to tooth brushing education, oral health education, and oral health promotion for the preventive management of oral diseases. Also, the expansion of insurance for oral health treatment is absolutely essential [16].
Hospital expenses for the elderly are a huge burden in a poor economic environment. The results of this study are expected to be helpful in improving oral health and changing various qualitative institutions that affect the quality of life and improve oral health by identifying the oral health status of the elderly and the effects of oral health on the lives of the elderly.
- Conclusion
An interview with the elderly aged 65 and over in Nowon-gu to investigate the factors that influence the oral health of the elderly in an aging society on the quality of life The following results were obtained by conducting a questionnaire survey in the form of a questionnaire.
1. Out of 70 survey subjects, 29 (41.4%) were male and 41 (58.6%) were female, indicating a rather high proportion of female respondents.
2. Regarding the physical health status of the respondents, 33 respondents (47.1%) said that their physical health was average, accounting for the highest proportion.
3. In the classification according to oral health status, your oral health status is average. There were 39 subjects (5.7%) who answered yes.
4. Recognition of oral health cognitive factors showed no significant difference in classification according to gender, age, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status type.
Through the above study results, it was possible to understand the effects of oral health status and oral health on the lives of the elderly.
- Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
- References
- YN Kim (2012). Factors influencing oral health-related quality of life in the elderly in Korea: Focusing on the PRECEDE model. Hanyang University graduate school doctoral thesis.
- JB Kim, Yujin Choi, Hyuksu Moon (1994). Public Oral Health Science. Seoul: Gomunsa.
- JM Kyung-, JS Hwang (2007). The effect of daily living activities on the quality of life of the elderly. A Study on Welfare of the Elderly, Vol. 36, p.221-246.
- MS Park (2009). Relationship between subjective oral health status and oral health lifestyle practice in old age Research. Master’s thesis, graduate school, Kwangwoon University.
- JY Bae (2008). The effect of oral health on the quality of life of the elderly. Yeungnam University University School doctoral thesis.
- SR Woo (2010). The effect of oral health status on life satisfaction of the elderly in the community Influence. Daegu Haany University graduate school master’s thesis.
- YY Jo (2009). The effect of oral health behavior on subjective oral health status in the elderly Hyang. Ajou University graduate school master’s thesis.
- JG Choi (1998). Extraoral causes of molar teeth. Journal of the Korean Dental Association, Vol. 36 No. 1, p.32-35.
- Atchison, K.A., & Dolan, T.A. (1990). Development of the geriatric oralhealthassessmentindex.Journal of Dentl Education, 54(11):680-687.
- Abegg, C. Croucher, R., Marcenes, W. S., & Sheiam, A. (2000). How Do Routines ofDaily Actvities and Flexibility of Daily Actvities Afect Tooth‐cleanig Behavior?. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 60(3):154-158.
- Atchison, K .A.,& Gift, H. C.(1997). Perceived oralhealth in a diversesampl.Advances in dental research, 11(2):272-280. Inglehart, M.R., & Bagramin, R. (Eds.). (2002). Oralhealth-related qualityoflife.QuintssencePub.
- Feraro, K. F., & Schafer, M. H. (2008). Gerontlogy’s GreatstHis. The Journals of Gerontlogy Seris B: Psycholgical Sciences and Social Sciences,63(1):S3-S6.
- Luxenberg, J. (1986). Geriatric Ambulatory and Institutional Care. Lancet,2,p.523-525.
- Locker, D., Matear, D., Stephens, M., & Jokovic, A. (2002). Oralhealth-related quality oflife ofa population ofmedicaly comprmisedelderlypeopl. Community dental health, 19(2): 90-97.
- Gilbert, L. (1994). Social factors and self‐assessed oralhealth in South Africa. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 22(1):47-51.
- Kushnir, D., Zusman, S. P., & Robinson, P. G. (2004). Validation of a Hebrw version of the oralhealth impact profile 14. Journal of public healh dentistry, 64(2):71-75.
Full Text(PDF) Free
