Background: Self-efficacy plays an important role in oral health-related behaviours. There is little known about\nassociations between self-efficacy and subjective oral health among populations at heightened risk of dental\ndisease. This study aimed to determine if low self-efficacy was associated with poor self-rated oral health after\nadjusting for confounding among a convenience sample of pregnant women.\nMethods: We used self-reported data from 446 Australian women pregnant with an Aboriginal child (age range\n14ââ?¬â??43 years) to evaluate self-rated oral health, self-efficacy and socio-demographic, psychosocial, social cognitive\nand risk factors. Hierarchical entry of explanatory variables into logistic regression models estimated prevalence\nodds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for fair or poor self-rated oral health.\nResults: In an unadjusted model, those with low self-efficacy had 2.40 times the odds of rating their oral health as\nââ?¬Ë?fairââ?¬â?¢ or ââ?¬Ë?poorââ?¬â?¢ (95% CI 1.54ââ?¬â??3.74). Addition of socio-demographic factors attenuated the effect of low self-efficacy on\npoor self-rated oral health by 10 percent (POR 2.19, 95% CI 1.37ââ?¬â??3.51). Addition of the psychosocial factors attenuated\nthe odds by 17 percent (POR 2.07, 95% CI 1.28ââ?¬â??3.36), while addition of the social cognitive variable fatalism increased\nthe odds by 1 percent (POR 2.42, 95% CI 1.55ââ?¬â??3.78). Inclusion of the behavioural risk factor ââ?¬Ë?not brushing previous dayââ?¬â?¢\nattenuated the odds by 15 percent (POR 2.11, 95%CI 1.32ââ?¬â??3.36). In the final model, which included all covariates, the\nodds were attenuated by 32 percent (POR 1.80, 95% CI 1.05, 3.08).\nConclusions: Low self-efficacy persisted as a risk indicator for poor self-rated oral health after adjusting for confounding\namong this vulnerable population.
Loading....