Back

Higher Family Income and Clinical Dental Outcomes of Minority Children: A Cross-Sectional Study

Okuji, D.; Luo, R.; Wei, T.; Lee, M.

2023-05-14 dentistry and oral medicine
10.1101/2023.05.08.23289674 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeThis study utilized Minorities Diminished Return theory and aimed to learn if minority children gain less protective effect from higher family income compared to White children for dental caries and multiple oral health problems. MethodsThis study was designed cross-sectionally from 21,599 subject-responses to the 2017 National Survey of Childrens Health. Specific outcomes included parental-reported dental caries and multiple oral health problems (e.g., toothaches, bleeding gums, and/or caries) compared across Hispanic and non-Hispanic White, Black, Asian, and Multi-race children. Logistic regression models estimated the effects of race/ethnicity on each outcome, with adjustments for child sex, parental education, child age, and income-to-needs ratio. ResultsThe findings showed when all racial/ethnic groups increased family income and socioeconomic status, there were no statistically significant differences between all racial/ethnic groups for the parental-reported dental caries and multiple oral health problems. ConclusionsThis studys findings show either 1) Minorities Diminished Return theory, which postulates that structural racism negatively impacts health gains from higher socioeconomic status for minority children, does not apply to childrens dental caries and multiple oral health problems or 2) the biologic load of the caries disease process supersedes the protective health gain effects from increased family income, expected by Minorities Diminished Return theory. Regardless, dentists and policymakers must support best practices and policies which benefit entire populations of children, through widespread disease prevention techniques, access-to-care, and utilization-of-care programs to decrease levels of childhood caries and other oral health problems.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.