outlined, the first four rungs from the bottom were assigned with a value of 1 (indicating the lowest status); rung five was assigned a value of 2; rung six with 3; rung seven with value 4 and the scores for rungs eight to ten were assigned with a value 5 (highest subjective social status). Almost half (49.3 %) of the participants perceived themselves to be of the lowest social status; almost a fifth (19%) in a low moderate status; little less than a quarter (21%) in a moderate social status. Slightly more than one tenth of participants perceived themselves as of high-moderate (6.5%) and high social status (4.5%). Table 511. Outcome variable scores at baseline (T1) and follow-up (T2) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Score range Variables Measures Baseline Follow-up (min-max) n=201 N=191 Macarthur 4.02 (1.17) -NA- Subjective SES 1-5 ladder Concern about oral 13.53(4.22) 14.29 Maslow’s 5-30 needs (3.78) health ERA-12 40.86(5.94) 37.46 Ageing expectations 12-48 (5.93) Perceived stress PSS-4 12.17 (3.25) 12.77(2.42) 4-20 Outcome variables OHIP- 44.32 36.64 OHQoL 19-95 EDENT (13.16) (11.13) de Liz 28.22 20.77 Denture satisfaction 9-45 Pocztaruk (10.37) (8.501) Chewing ability index 1.83 (1.29) 2.44 (1.37) 0-5 Leake’s Concern about oral health Concern about oral health was measured using a 6-item scale derived from hierarchy of needs (1943) and the scale used by Marshman and Maslow’s colleagues (2014) to measure dental indifference. Higher scores indicated less concern about own oral health. The maximum score possible for the one’s scale was 30 while the lowest was 6. The mean scores were 13.53 (T1) and 14.29 (T2) (Table 5-11). There was a slight decrease with participants concern
outlined, the first four rungs from the bottom were assigned with a value of 1 (indicating the lowest status); rung five was assigned a value of 2; rung six with 3; rung seven with value 4 and the scores for rungs eight to ten were assigned with a value 5 (highest subjective social status). Almost half (49.3 %) of the participants perceived themselves to be of the lowest social status; almost a fifth (19%) in a low moderate status; little less than a quarter (21%) in a moderate social status. Slightly more than one tenth of participants perceived themselves as of high-moderate (6.5%) and high social status (4.5%). Table 511. Outcome variable scores at baseline (T1) and follow-up (T2) Variables Score range (min-max) Measures Mean (SD) Baseline n=201 Mean (SD) Follow-up N=191 Subjective SES 1-5 Macarthur ladder 4.02 (1.17) -NA- Concern about oral health 5-30 Maslow’s needs 13.53(4.22) 14.29 (3.78) Ageing expectations 12-48 ERA-12 40.86(5.94) 37.46 (5.93) Perceived stress 4-20 PSS-4 12.17 (3.25) 12.77(2.42) Outcome variables OHQoL 19-95 OHIP- EDENT 44.32 (13.16) 36.64 (11.13) Denture satisfaction 9-45 de Liz Pocztaruk 28.22 (10.37) 20.77 (8.501) Chewing ability 0-5 Leake’s index 1.83 (1.29) 2.44 (1.37) Concern about oral health Concern about oral health was measured using a 6-item scale derived from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) and the scale used by Marshman and colleagues (2014) to measure dental indifference. Higher scores indicated less concern about one’s own oral health. The maximum score possible for the scale was 30 while the lowest was 6. The mean scores were 13.53 (T1) and 14.29 (T2) (Table 5-11). There was a slight decrease with participants concern