Indian Journal of Dental Research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year
: 2011  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 552--555

Quality of life among dentists in teaching hospitals in South Canara, India


Dolar Doshi1, Animesh Jain2, K Vinaya3, Shashidhar Kotian2,  
1 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, A.B. Shetty Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dolar Doshi
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
India

Abstract

Objectives : This paper reports on the quality of life among dentists using World Health Organization Abbreviated Instrument for Quality of Life Assessment, comprising 26 items which measure the following broad domains: Physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment. Materials and Methods : The instrument was self-administered among dentists in four teaching dental institutions. A total of 191 questionnaires were given out. Of those, 187 were consented and answered, making up a response rate of 97.9%. The internal consistency of the questionnaire, measured by Cronbach«SQ»s alpha was estimated at 0.75. Results : Highest mean score was seen for Domain 3 (Social relationships) (16.15 + 2.38) and the least score was for Domain 4 (Environment) (14.72 + 2.12). Higher proportions of respondents rated their quality of life as good (65.1 percent), and also majority of dentists (63.5 percent) were satisfied with their health. Conclusion : Quality of life recognizes the value of an individual«SQ»s health in the broader psychologic and social aspects of his/her life. In this study, the overall rating of quality of life among dentists in teaching hospitals is good.



How to cite this article:
Doshi D, Jain A, Vinaya K, Kotian S. Quality of life among dentists in teaching hospitals in South Canara, India.Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:552-555


How to cite this URL:
Doshi D, Jain A, Vinaya K, Kotian S. Quality of life among dentists in teaching hospitals in South Canara, India. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2011 [cited 2014 Dec 20 ];22:552-555
Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2011/22/4/552/90297


Full Text

Debate on quality of life (QOL) is a millennia-old, with Aristotle giving it much thought in his Nichomachean ethics and eventually settling on the notion of eudaimonia, a Greek term often translated as happiness, as central. In the beginning of the 21 st century, the relevance of QOL underwent a quantum shift and has today become a forefront of public health policy. Much has been said and written on the QOL in recent years. QOL is a "subjective" component of well being. Subjective well-being comprises of contentment, satisfaction, happiness, hope and good feelings about one's past life, one's present life and one's presumed future life.

A recent definition of QOL is "a composite measure of physical, mental and social well-being as perceived by each individual or by group of individuals - that is to say, happiness, satisfaction and gratification as it is experienced in such life concerns as health, marriage, family work, financial situation, educational opportunities, self-esteem, creativity, belongingness and trust in others". [1] QOL is thus individuals' perceptions of their positions in life in the context of culture and value system in which they live, and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It is a subjective evaluation which is embedded in a cultural, social and environmental context.

The elusive concept of QOL has also become a topic of increasing concern in this day among members of the dental profession. The dentist works with an exacting skill and concentrated physical and nervous energy. He is constantly educating himself to the clinical advances and social changes affecting his profession by reading the numerous professional journals, enrolling in courses or by attending meetings. What then is the quality of life for this person - a person who is a part entrepreneur and part humanitarian, a person whose professional standing is never in question and a person who does not usually, during the course of his occupational activities, have interaction with his colleagues. [2] From a review of the literature, it is clear that there are too few studies, and those that address the problem, do so obliquely. [3] A need for studies which evaluate the QOL of dentists has been stressed. [2] Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to report on the quality of life among dentists in dental teaching hospitals at Mangalore city, Karnataka, India, and determine the factors that affect their quality of life.

 Materials and Methods



A review of literature identified the World Health Organization Abbreviated Instrument for Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL-BREF), [4] an abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100 as a suitable instrument to be used for QOL assessment. WHOQOL-BREF was used with the consultation of the WHOQOL group (personal communication via email). Separate questions on individual characteristics such as year of passing, and those related to private practice were added. The WHOQOL-BREF is a twenty-six-item questionnaire, using a five-point Likert scale. It includes one item from each of the 24 facets contained in the WHOQOL-100 distributed in four domains [Table 1]. In addition, two items from the Overall quality of life and General Health facet have been included.{Table 1}

The questionnaire was self-administered to both BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) and MDS (Master of Dental Surgery) faculty in four teaching dental institutions at Mangalore city, Karnataka, India. The completed questionnaires were collected the next day in order to give ample time for completion and not to interrupt with the normal curriculum. Approval to carry out this study was obtained from the Deans of the four dental teaching hospitals prior to its commencement. The questionnaires were coded and data was entered and analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10.0 software. Domain scores were scaled in a positive direction (i.e., higher scores denote higher quality of life). The mean scores of items within each domain were used to calculate the domain score. Mean scores were multiplied by four in order to make domain scores comparable with the scores used in WHOQOL-100. Where more than 20% of data was missing from the assessment, the assessment was discarded. Where an item was missing, the mean of other items in the domain was substituted. Where more than two items were missing, from the domain, the domain score was not calculated (with the exception of domain 3, where the domain should be calculated if <1 item is missing). [5] Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were obtained. The internal consistency of the questionnaire, measured by Cronbach's alpha was estimated at 0.75. To analyze the relation between the domain scores and various variables, step-wise linear regression analysis was done. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

 Results



A total of 191 questionnaires were distributed. Descriptive data for the survey respondents are shown in [Table 2]. The mean age of the respondents was 31.5 + 7.36 years. Majority of the respondents had a postgraduate master's degree (68.1 percent). When questioned about their present condition of health, only 7 (3.7 percent) reported being presently ill due to variety of reasons (stress, joint pain, allergy, backache, hernia, Gastroesophageal reflux disease, renal stones). [Table 3] presents the mean transformed scores on a scale of 4-20 (0-100), standard deviation and the minimum and maximum scores of each domain. Highest mean score was seen for Domain 3 (Social relationships) (16.15 + 2.38) and the least score was for Domain 4 (Environment) (14.72 + 2.12). Higher proportions of respondents rated their quality of life as good (65.1 percent) and also majority (63.5 percent) was satisfied with their health.{Table 2}{Table 3}

Step-wise linear regression between each domain and each independent variable was carried out to analyze the association between them [Table 4]. The correlation coefficient for Domain 1, 2 and 4 was 0.27 and for Domain 3 was 0.24. Being presently ill was the only highly significant variable for the Domain 1 (physical) (P = 0.008) whereas the variables being presently ill and also the highest educational qualification played a significant role in determining Domain 2 (psychological) (P = 0.04). On the other hand, Domain 4 (environment) was significantly associated with the marital status of the respondents (P = 0.04).{Table 4}

 Discussion



The purpose of this study was to assess and determine the factors that affect the quality of life among Indian dentists in teaching dental institutions. In order to achieve this, we chose to use WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. [4] The WHOQOL-BREF measures overall quality of life and general health along with detailed assessment of quality of life described in four domains. Questions are grouped in response format to control the item order effects which could occur and change item meaning. [5] The psychometric validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF in different versions has been tested and reported very frequently in the literature. [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]

Questionnaires were distributed based on the number of faculty available at the time of study. Attempts were made to also include all the missed out staff, and hence the final number amounted to 191. Of those, 187 consented and answered the questionnaire, making up a response rate of 97.9%. The results of the study showed that overall only 1% of the respondents felt that their quality of life was "very poor" as compared to 11.5% who rated it as "very good". Likewise, only a small proportion were "very dissatisfied" with their health (0.5%). The lowest mean domain score was noticed for Domain 4 (environment), which was significantly governed by marital status. This could be possibly because facets like home environment and leisure activities are included in this domain. Conversely, Domain 1 ascertains the activities of daily living and consequently was significantly associated with present illness. A postgraduate degree certainly boosts the self-esteem and enhances positive feelings in an individual, moreover, memory and concentration and bodily appearance is hampered by being ill, as a result, highest educational qualification and current illness significantly influenced Domain 2 (psychological). Other demographic factors like age, gender, experience and private practice did not influence quality of life in this study.

In the present study, social domain had highest mean score, this finding being similar to two other studies by Wig et al. and Barua et al., [14],[15] on Indian population. Alternatively, study by Nunes et al., [3] on dentists of local public health service in Brazil, had physical domain as the highest mean domain score (70.3; SD-14.6). In our study, most of the respondents had a fair to very good quality of life scores, similar to that of female Thai physicians. [16] However, the results of the present study must be interpreted within the bounds of certain limitations. First, only dentists associated with teaching institutes were considered, therefore, generalization of results cannot be done. Secondly, the number of work hours spent in a week was not accounted as the amount of academic and clinical work is not consistent in a teaching setup and in private practice and also among BDS and MDS staff.

To conclude, quality of life recognizes the value of an individual's health in the broader psychologic and social aspects of his/her life. The present study represents a sample of Indian dentists in teaching institutions, and reports that overall rating of quality of life among them is high.

References

1Nagpal R, Sell H. Subjective wellbeing. Rg. Health Papers No. 7, SEARO, WHO New Delhi 1985.
2Orner G. The quality of life of the dentist. Int Dent J 1978;28:320-6.
3Nunes ME, Freire MC. Quality of life among dentists of a local public health service. Rev Saude Publica 2006;40:1019-26.
4The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998;28:551-8.
5The WHOQOL Group. WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment. Geneva: WHO; 1996.
6Moreno AB, Faerstein E, Werneck GL, Lopes CS, Chor D. Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Abbreviated Instrument for Quality of Life Assessment in the Pró-Saúde Study. Cad Saude Publica 2006;22:2585-97.
7Min SK, Kim KI, Lee CI, Jung YC, Suh SY, Kim DK. Development of the Korean versions of WHO Quality of Life scale and WHOQOL-BREF. Qual Life Res 2002;11:593-600.
8Yao G, Chung CW, Yu CF, Wang JD. Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. J Formos Med Assoc 2002;101:342-51.
9Fleck MP, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, Santos L, et al. Application of the Portuguese version of the abbreviated instrument of quality life WHOQOL-bref. Rev Saude Publica 2000;34:178-83.
10Tsutsumi A, Izutsu T, Kato S, Islam MA, Yamada HS, Kato H, et al. Reliability and validity of the Bangla version of WHOQOL-BREF in an adult population in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2006;60:493-8.
11De Girolamo G, Rucci P, Scocco P, Becchi A, Coppa F, D'Addario A, et al. Quality of life assessment: Validation of the Italian version of the WHOQOL-Brief. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2000;9:45-55.
12Hasanah CI, Naing L, Rahman AR. World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment: Brief version in Bahasa Malaysia. Med J Malaysia 2003;58:79-88.
13Saxena S, Chandiramani K, Bhargava R. WHOQOL-Hindi: A questionnaire for assessing quality of life in health care settings in India: World Health Organization Quality of Life. Natl Med J India 1998;11:155-7.
14Wig N, Lekshmi R, Pal H, Ahuja V, Mittal CM, Agarwal SK. The impact of HIV/AIDS on the quality of life: A cross sectional study in north India. Indian J Med Sci 2006;60:3-12.
15Barua A, Mangesh R, Kumar H, Mathew S. A cross-sectional study on quality of life in geriatric population. Indian J Comm Med 2007;32:146-7.
16Vutyavanich T, Sreshthaputra R, Thitadilok W, Sukcharoen N. Quality of life and risk factors that affect the quality of life of Thai female physicians. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:2260-5.