Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population: Self-perceived (self-rated) oral health status
Most participants perceive their oral health as satisfactory (one study 39%), more so among younger, male, higher-SES and employed people; ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population Self-perceived (self-rated) oral health status · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs · Cross-sectional, Urban slums and non-slum/general-urban settings, LMICs, By age, sex, socioeconomic class, employment Most participants perceive their oral health as satisfactory (one study 39%), more so among younger, male, higher-SES and employed people; ungraded. Systematic review of oral health in slums and non-slum urban settings of Low and Middle-Income Countries… (2024) All outcomes | Six studies (incl. 1 qualitative) reported perception; most participants rated their oral health as satisfactory/good (e.g., Olutola 76% good; Olusile 21% very good + 37% good; Osuh higher in slum than non-slum),… | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review of oral health in slums and non-slum urban settings of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): Disease prevalence,… 2024 All outcomes | June 2023 (Scopus and Web of Science searched March 2024) | 23 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.