Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Public Health. 2016 Mar 16;134:54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.04.024

Table 3.

Influence of State-Level Contextual Variables on Oral Health Outcomes, United States, 2007 (Partial R2 Values)

No Preventive Dental Visit (PM) Fair/Poor Oral Health (PM)
% Persons in poverty --- ---
% Children in poverty --- ---
% Population with access to fluoridated water (2006) --- 16.4a
Sealant use in children --- ---
% Population in DHPSAs (2003) --- ---
Racial/ethnic distribution of dentistsb --- ---
% minority dentists --- ---
General dentists per 100,000 --- ---
Medicaid payment as % of prevailing private rates, for:
    • Topical application of fluoride (including prophylaxis), adult --- ---
    • Sealant --- ---
    • Amalgam - two surfaces, primary or permanent* --- ---
    • Prophylaxis, child --- ---
    • Periodic oral evaluation --- ---
Total population living in DHPSAs 13.5a ---
Estimated underserved population in DHPSAs 16.7a ---
Dentists needed to remove shortage designation 18.4a ---
State pays at least the national average of Medicaid rates (2008) 7.6c ---
% low-income children receiving dental services 31.2a ---
Overall R2 45.7 16.4
a

p≤0.01

b

White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Other

c

0.01<p≤0.05

Notes: PM, Predicted marginals; dental health professional shortage area (DHPSA)

1. Predicted marginals for “No Preventive Dental Visit” account for the non-state measures of family poverty status, insurance status, age, receipt of preventive medical care, family structure, household size, physical health of parents, use of tobacco products, language spoken at home, index of perceived neighborhood support.

2. Predicted marginals for “Fair or Poor Oral Health Status” account for the non-state measures of race/ethnicity, family poverty status, insurance status, age, medical home, highest education in household, household size, parental coping with child raising, use of tobacco products, language spoken at home, index of perceived neighborhood support, and index of positive neighborhood attributes.

3. Only results for state variables significant at 0.05 or lower are shown in the table.