Does the Self-Reported Behavioural Automaticity Index provide a valid measure of toothbrushing behaviour in adults?

IF 1.8 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Community dentistry and oral epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1111/cdoe.12922

Heather Raison, Rebecca V. Harris

{"title":"Does the Self-Reported Behavioural Automaticity Index provide a valid measure of toothbrushing behaviour in adults?","authors":"Heather Raison, Rebecca V. Harris","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.12922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Studies to promote regular toothbrushing usually rely on self-reports of toothbrushing frequency (SRF). However, toothbrushing frequency measures may be open to responder bias since twice-daily toothbrushing is a commonly accepted social norm. The validity of SRF measures is unclear, meaning that their use as outcomes in interventional work may be flawed. The study's aim was to compare two different self-reported toothbrushing measures: SRF and the Self-Reported Behavioural Automaticity Index (SRBAI); with measurement of observed toothbrushing frequency tracked over 6 weeks. A secondary aim was to explore the interaction effect of various moderators (age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), sex, self-efficacy, participant personality and routine preference) upon the correlation between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and sixty-four adults were recruited via a number of different community groups and workplaces outside the dental setting. After consent, participants completed a questionnaire which collected demographic and participant characteristics measures (age, ethnicity, SES, sex, self-efficacy, participant personality and routine preference) and self-reported toothbrushing habits. Participants then attached a ‘Brushlink’ device to their toothbrush for 6 weeks to track their observed toothbrushing frequency.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Using the Pearson correlation coefficient, a moderately strong positive linear association (<i>r</i> = 0.65) between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency was found. By comparison, the correlation between SRF and observed toothbrushing frequency was weak (<i>r</i> = 0.39). There was a weak positive association between self-reported behaviour frequency and SRBAI score (<i>r</i> = 0.35). Using multivariable linear regression, no statistically significant interactional effect was demonstrated for any moderator variable upon the correlation coefficient of SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The SRBAI provided a stronger association with observed toothbrushing frequency than the SRF measure. A moderately strong relationship between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency was found, compared to a weak positive relationship between self-reported behaviour frequency and SRBAI score. This suggests that the SRBAI score could be a suitable proxy to measure observed toothbrushing behaviour and preferable to SRF in interventional work.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":"52 4","pages":"381-388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cdoe.12922","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12922","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Studies to promote regular toothbrushing usually rely on self-reports of toothbrushing frequency (SRF). However, toothbrushing frequency measures may be open to responder bias since twice-daily toothbrushing is a commonly accepted social norm. The validity of SRF measures is unclear, meaning that their use as outcomes in interventional work may be flawed. The study's aim was to compare two different self-reported toothbrushing measures: SRF and the Self-Reported Behavioural Automaticity Index (SRBAI); with measurement of observed toothbrushing frequency tracked over 6 weeks. A secondary aim was to explore the interaction effect of various moderators (age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), sex, self-efficacy, participant personality and routine preference) upon the correlation between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency.

Methods

One hundred and sixty-four adults were recruited via a number of different community groups and workplaces outside the dental setting. After consent, participants completed a questionnaire which collected demographic and participant characteristics measures (age, ethnicity, SES, sex, self-efficacy, participant personality and routine preference) and self-reported toothbrushing habits. Participants then attached a ‘Brushlink’ device to their toothbrush for 6 weeks to track their observed toothbrushing frequency.

Results

Using the Pearson correlation coefficient, a moderately strong positive linear association (r = 0.65) between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency was found. By comparison, the correlation between SRF and observed toothbrushing frequency was weak (r = 0.39). There was a weak positive association between self-reported behaviour frequency and SRBAI score (r = 0.35). Using multivariable linear regression, no statistically significant interactional effect was demonstrated for any moderator variable upon the correlation coefficient of SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency.

Conclusions

The SRBAI provided a stronger association with observed toothbrushing frequency than the SRF measure. A moderately strong relationship between SRBAI and observed toothbrushing frequency was found, compared to a weak positive relationship between self-reported behaviour frequency and SRBAI score. This suggests that the SRBAI score could be a suitable proxy to measure observed toothbrushing behaviour and preferable to SRF in interventional work.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

自我报告行为自动性指数是否为成人刷牙行为提供了有效的衡量标准?

背景:促进定期刷牙的研究通常依赖于刷牙频率(SRF)的自我报告。然而，刷牙频率的测量可能会受到回应者的偏见，因为每天刷牙两次是一种普遍接受的社会规范。SRF措施的有效性尚不清楚，这意味着它们作为介入工作结果的使用可能存在缺陷。该研究的目的是比较两种不同的自我报告刷牙方法:SRF和自我报告行为自动性指数(SRBAI);对观察到的刷牙频率进行了6周的跟踪测量。第二个目的是探讨不同调节因子(年龄、种族、社会经济地位、性别、自我效能感、被试人格和日常偏好)对SRBAI与观察到的刷牙频率的相关性的交互作用。方法:164名成年人通过一些不同的社区团体和工作场所以外的牙科设置招募。同意后，参与者完成了一份调查问卷，收集了人口统计和参与者特征测量(年龄、种族、社会经济地位、性别、自我效能感、参与者个性和日常偏好)和自我报告的刷牙习惯。然后，参与者将一个“Brushlink”设备连接到他们的牙刷上，为期六周，以跟踪他们观察到的刷牙频率。结果:使用Pearson相关系数，SRBAI与观察到的刷牙频率呈中等强的正线性相关(r = 0.65)。SRF与观察刷牙频率的相关性较弱(r = 0.39)。自我报告的行为频率与SRBAI评分呈弱正相关(r = 0.35)。采用多变量线性回归分析，各调节变量对SRBAI与观察刷牙频率的相关系数均无显著交互作用。结论:与SRF测量相比，SRBAI与观察到的刷牙频率有更强的相关性。SRBAI与观察到的刷牙频率之间存在中等强度的关系，而自我报告的行为频率与SRBAI评分之间存在微弱的正相关关系。这表明SRBAI评分可以作为衡量观察到的刷牙行为的合适代理，并且在介入性工作中优于SRF。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

8.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome. The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry. The journal is published bimonthly.