64 Chapter 3 was a significant predictor of OHRQoL, ß= -.15, t(232)= -2.44= p = .006. Not having an insurance for oral health as risk factor corresponded, on average, to a lower score in OHRQoL score of 2.67 points, B= -2.67, 95%CI [-4.44, -1.04]. The other risk factors were found not to be significant in the model. Prevalence and odds ratio for the impact on OHRQoL Statistically, a negative impact on OHRQoL was significantly more prevalent in the case group compared to the control group (14,8 % versus 1,8 % respectively, p < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact test) (Table 5). Based on the odds ratio, the odds of a negative impact on OHRQoL in the case group was 9.45 (CI 2.59–34.54, p <.001) times higher than in the control group. Table 5. Prevalence of impact on OHRQoL in case-control group. N = 247 Negative impact on OHRQoL No impact on OHRQoL Total N Case group 12 (14.8%) 69 (85.2%) 81 (100%) Control group 3 (1.8%) 163 (98.2%) 166 (100%) Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study with a case-control comparison design, providing insight into risk factors and the impact on OHRQoL in patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (first-episode) between 18 and 35 years, compared to peers without a history of a psychotic disorder. Our two main findings were, firstly, OHRQoL was significantly lower among patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (first-episode) than in the general population, and, secondly, of the patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (first-episode) 14.8% reported a negative impact on OHQoL, much higher than the prevalence of 1.8% found in people from the general population. This led to a 9.45 times higher risk of impact on OHRQoL in patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (first-episode), compared to their controls. The width of the CI is large. As large CI’s led to limited confidence in the magnitude of the detected difference, more research would be required.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw