Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff

Impact of oral health perception on the quality... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238" }, "headline": "Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff", "datePublished": "2025-02-26T15:05:28", "dateModified": "2026-01-28T18:24:38", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Miryam Lora Loza" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Katia Ninozca Flores Ledesma" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nancy Cuenca Robles" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "David Rene Rodríguez Díaz" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Introduction The perception of oral health that hospital staff may have has repercussions on the general quality of life that they lead and the corresponding work performance. This work attempts to show how these two dimensions of the human being go hand in hand, which would provide the necessary knowledge to draw up strategies that can alleviate the aforementioned profile, and at the same time would help to build a work context that could well have a healthier horizon. Aim To determine the relationship between quality of life (QoL) and oral health perception (OHP) in the staff of level II-1 hospital, located in the northern zone of Peru. Methods The study had a quantitative approach, a cross-sectional design, an applied type and a correlational-causal scope. The participation consisted of 72 participants. Reference was made to the validated questionnaires OHIP-14 and HU-DBI, which allow measuring the quality of life and the perception of oral health, and obtained reliability coefficients of 0.847 and 0.804, respectively. Data processing was carried out by applying the Spearman correlation coefficient and ordinal logistic regression. Results The analyses showed a significant association between quality of life and oral health perception (Rho=0.391, p<0.05), with an impact of 19.8% according to Nagelkerke’s pseudo R square. The dimensions of quality of life that most significantly influenced oral health perception were physical limitation (Rho=0.319, p<0.05) and social limitation (Rho=0.242, p<0.05). Regarding the general results, the excellent level of quality of life was the most prevalent (38.9%), while the low level of oral health perception was the most frequent, with 52.8%. Conclusion The link between quality of life and the perception of oral health in hospital staff emphasizes the need to implement comprehensive strategies that optimize their well-being and work performance, contributing significantly to improving hospital services. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1", "name": "Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital..." } } ] } Home Browse Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Lora Loza M, Alvarado-Romero SdP, Flores Ledesma KN et al. Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Miryam Lora Loza https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-1314 1 , Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9996-5236 1 , Katia Ninozca Flores Ledesma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9088-5820 2 , Nancy Cuenca Robles 2 , David Rene Rodríguez Díaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9203-3576 3 Miryam Lora Loza https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5099-1314 1 , Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9996-5236 1 , [...] Katia Ninozca Flores Ledesma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9088-5820 2 , Nancy Cuenca Robles 2 , David Rene Rodríguez Díaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9203-3576 3 PUBLISHED 26 Feb 2025 Author details Author details 1 Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 2 Graduate School of, Cesar Vallejo University, Lima, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 3 School of Human Medicine, Private University of the North, Trujillo, Lima Norte, 13001, Peru Miryam Lora Loza Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Katia Ninozca Flores Ledesma Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nancy Cuenca Robles Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Rene Rodríguez Díaz Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Introduction The perception of oral health that hospital staff may have has repercussions on the general quality of life that they lead and the corresponding work performance. This work attempts to show how these two dimensions of the human being go hand in hand, which would provide the necessary knowledge to draw up strategies that can alleviate the aforementioned profile, and at the same time would help to build a work context that could well have a healthier horizon. Aim To determine the relationship between quality of life (QoL) and oral health perception (OHP) in the staff of level II-1 hospital, located in the northern zone of Peru. Methods The study had a quantitative approach, a cross-sectional design, an applied type and a correlational-causal scope. The participation consisted of 72 participants. Reference was made to the validated questionnaires OHIP-14 and HU-DBI, which allow measuring the quality of life and the perception of oral health, and obtained reliability coefficients of 0.847 and 0.804, respectively. Data processing was carried out by applying the Spearman correlation coefficient and ordinal logistic regression. Results The analyses showed a significant association between quality of life and oral health perception (Rho=0.391, p<0.05), with an impact of 19.8% according to Nagelkerke’s pseudo R square. The dimensions of quality of life that most significantly influenced oral health perception were physical limitation (Rho=0.319, p<0.05) and social limitation (Rho=0.242, p<0.05). Regarding the general results, the excellent level of quality of life was the most prevalent (38.9%), while the low level of oral health perception was the most frequent, with 52.8%. Conclusion The link between quality of life and the perception of oral health in hospital staff emphasizes the need to implement comprehensive strategies that optimize their well-being and work performance, contributing significantly to improving hospital services. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Quality of life, perception, oral health, staff, hospital Corresponding Author(s) Miryam Lora Loza ( [email protected] ) Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Miryam Lora Loza, Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Lora Loza M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Lora Loza M, Alvarado-Romero SdP, Flores Ledesma KN et al. Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.1 ) First published: 26 Feb 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.1 ) Latest published: 28 Jan 2026, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.6 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Oral health is an essential pillar for comprehensive well-being, as it has a direct impact on quality of life, since it allows essential functions such as communicating, eating and interacting socially, as well as strengthening self-esteem and relationships with other people. 1 Oral diseases not only affect functional aspects, but also psychological, social and economic dimensions, generating discomfort, pain and loss of self-esteem, which compromises general well-being and social relationships. 2 , 3 The relationship between oral health and quality of life highlights its importance in meeting SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, aimed at ensuring healthy conditions for all people. In addition, oral health contributes to other global goals, such as access to safe drinking water (SDG 6), reducing inequalities (SDG 10) and promoting sustainable communities (SDG 11). The number of people affected by oral cavity diseases is close to 3.5 billion worldwide, being more frequent in low- and middle-income countries, which concentrate 75% of the cases. Among these, untreated dental caries is the most prevalent condition, reflecting inequalities in access to preventive services and basic treatments. 4 , 5 In Latin America, periodontal diseases are considered an epidemic that significantly affects the population, and in countries such as Peru, the lack of priority in oral health is reflected in low public investment, with oral cancer rates of 2.60 per 100,000 women and 1.97 in men between 2000 and 2017. 6 This panorama is linked to the limited allocation of resources, the absence of effective preventive strategies and early detection programs. 7 In response to this problem, international organizations such as the WHO have launched key initiatives. The IED Vision 2030 Report and the 2021 Resolution on oral health emphasize the need to incorporate this area into Universal Health Coverage (UHC), aligning it with the global agenda for addressing non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Likewise, the “World Oral Health Report 2022” highlights the interest in highlighting the importance of prioritizing the promotion of oral health, following national plans that are in line with global strategies that support it. This requires the collaboration of support agencies such as UNESCO and UNDP, which can be decisive in the integration of oral health into policies for the well-being and development of people. 7 – 9 PSB is a reference aspect of health for the personnel who achieve it and the quality of the services that result from it. This perception may be influenced by some circumstances of the environment or of the personnel themselves: restricted access to dental services and long workloads. 10 – 12 Having a negative perception of SO often hinders interaction and self-esteem, which shows the importance of not taking SO into account in CV studies regarding healthcare personnel. 6 , 13 The present study aims to try to analyze the relationship between the QoL and the PSB of the staff of a level II-1 hospital, located in the north of Peru, taking into account its dimensions and interactions. The research aims to provide evidence to design strategies that promote the well-being of health personnel and optimize the quality of care provided to patients. 14 , 15 Methods Research type and design An applied study was conducted, aimed at using theoretical knowledge to propose concrete solutions to problems of hospital staff. 16 , 17 An applied study was conducted, aimed at applying theoretical knowledge to propose concrete solutions to problems of hospital staff. 18 The scope of the study was correlational-causal, seeking to identify the relationship between the variables and understand their level of causal relationship. 19 , 20 Likewise, a non-experimental cross-sectional research design was used, collecting data at a single time without altering the variables, allowing the analysis of phenomena in their natural context. Population The group was made up of professional and technical health personnel who provided care in a level II-1 hospital in northern Peru, reaching a total of 80 people. This group included 21 physicians, 10 obstetricians, 1 dentist, 1 pharmaceutical chemist, 17 nurses, 2 psychologists, 3 biologists, 5 microbiologists, 2 medical technologists, 13 nursing technicians, 4 pharmacy technicians and 1 laboratory technician. After applying the inclusion criteria, which took into consideration appointed or seconded personnel and CAS (Administrative Contracting of Services), with more than 6 months of seniority, who agreed to complete each of the questions formulated in both questionnaires, adding their stamp and signature on the document referring to informed consent, and the exclusion criteria considered workers with less than six months of seniority, those who were on vacation or on medical leave, those who worked under a third party modality, those who were performing the SERUMS (Rural and Marginal Urban Health Service) and those who did not agree to participate in the study. As a result, a final sample of 72 collaborators was obtained. The sampling used was non-probabilistic and based on convenience. Variables Regarding the variables, quality of life (QoL) was identified as the independent variable, defined as the perception that an individual has about his or her life in aspects related to his or her family relationships, health and social environment, used to evaluate his or her general well-being. 21 To do so, various dimensions were analyzed, such as functional limitation, psychological discomfort, physical pain, various physical, psychological and social disabilities and handicap. On the other hand, the dependent variable was PSB, which refers to the subjective assessment of the oral state and its impact on QoL. 22 This variable was broken down into 3 main dimensions: perception of attitude, knowledge and behavior. Data collection technique and instrument The technique used was the survey, since it allowed collecting precise information from the professional and technical staff of the hospital through questionnaires, without altering the environment or the object of study. 23 Regarding the instruments, the Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire was used, originally designed by Slade and Spencer in 1994, adapted by Espinoza in 2017, and updated and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. Loza. This questionnaire includes 14 items organized into 7 dimensions (Functional limitation, Physical pain, Psychological discomfort, Physical disabilities, Psychological disabilities, Social disability, and Disability), with 2 items per dimension. A 5-point Likert scale was applied (0 = never, 4 = very frequently), the results of which were classified into three categories: excellent (0-2 points), average (3-9 points), and poor quality of life (10 points or more). Similarly, the Oral Health Perception Questionnaire (OHQ) was used, initially developed by Kawamura in 1988, modified by Midolo in 2023, and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. This instrument consists of 20 items distributed in three dimensions: Perception of knowledge (8 items), Perception of attitude (6 items), and Perception of behavior (6 items). Responses were recorded on a dichotomous scale (Yes = 1, No = 0), and results were classified into three levels: poor (0-9 points), average (10 points), and excellent (11-20 points). Both instruments were subjected to strict validation, which was carried out by five experts in the area of health and research methodology, who evaluated the questions of both questionnaires with respect to the criteria of coherence, relevance, clarity including further clarifications and sufficiency. This process had a degree of concordance of 100% (Aiken’s V = 1.00), which indicates a strong validity in the instruments. And for reliability, a pilot study was carried out prior to the research, applying the Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire to 20 healthcare workers, where a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.847 was obtained, which is a good internal consistency. In the case of the Oral Health Perception Questionnaire (OHQ), which was constructed as a dichotomous instrument, it showed good internal reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.804, which also indicates high reliability. The results obtained support the suitability of the questionnaires to be applied in the research. Procedure The process began with the sending of a cover letter, issued by the Graduate School of the César Vallejo University; this was addressed to the administrative area of the level II-1 La Libertad hospital. In it, authorization was requested for the use of the research instruments. Once they authorized the use, days and times were coordinated to visit the hospital and distribute the questionnaires to the healthcare staff. Likewise, at the separation, the subjects were told the purposes and objectives of the study, guaranteeing the anonymity and confidentiality of the data. The participants were asked to read and sign an informed consent prior to answering the questionnaires. The application of the instruments was carried out in isolated spaces within their work areas, and lasts approximately 8 minutes per subject, ensuring adequate conditions to minimize distractions and biases. Information analysis The data collected through the application of the questionnaires have been statistically processed using the IBM SPSS software version 25 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics ). First, a normality test was performed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, which yielded results indicating that the data did not comply with normality (p < 0.05); a result that precipitated the option of using non-parametric tests to analyze the data. To analyze the relationship between Quality of Life (QoL) and Oral Health Perception (OHP), the Spearman Rho correlation coefficient was used, which is the most appropriate for ordinal data or data that do not follow a normal distribution. Once the data were categorized, an ordinal logistic regression model was used, Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R square as a statistic. As an alternative to the software used, the R program, The R Project for Statistical Computing, could also be used. This analysis identified the impact of the independent variables and the amount of variability explained. The results obtained allowed an in-depth analysis of the associations and effects of the variables. 24 – 27 Ethical implications This study was conducted under strict principles of scientific integrity and in compliance with the Code of Ethics for Research of the César Vallejo University (Universidad César Vallejo, 2024). 28 Likewise, international ethical standards were rigorously respected, including the provisions of the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2016), the guidelines of the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979) and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). 29 – 31 The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Master’s Program in Health Services Management at César Vallejo University, through the Resolution of the Vice-rectorate for Research No. 405-2024-VI-UCV, issued on January 30, 2025, with official confirmation on February 11, 2025. The ethics committee was made up of: president: Dr. Roberto Santiago Bellido García, secretary: Dr. Diaz Mujica Juana Yris, External member: Mgtr. Melecio Belisario Carlos Reyes, Alternate member: Dr. Patricia Luz Figueroa Garrido, Added member: Mtro. Omar Arturo Lizárraga Carrasco, Added member: Dr. Meneses La Riva Mónica Elisa. Likewise, all participants signed a written informed consent, in which the objectives, procedures, benefits, and risks of the study were detailed. Only those who fully understood and accepted these conditions participated. Furthermore, the university’s ethical policies were respected, ensuring the originality and rigor of the work, with a level of textual similarity of less than 17% in the documents generated. Results Table 1 , shows that 38.90% of the staff with excellent CV reported a low PSB of 52.80%, while 34.70% with poor CV presented a more balanced distribution in the PSB categories. Also, a low positive correlation (r=0.391) but significant (p=0.001) was evident between CV and PSB. Also, the ordinal logistic regression analysis, with a Nagelkerke pseudo R square of 0.198 (p=0.001), confirmed a significant influence of CV on PSB, representing 19.80%. Table 1. Causal relationship between Quality of life and the Perception of Oral Health of the healthcare staff of a level II-1 hospital in Northern Peru, 2024. Quality of life (CV) Oral Health Perception (OHP) Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 21 29,20 6 8.30 1 1.40 28 38.90 Regular 8 11,10 1 1.40 10 13.90 19 26.40 Bad 9 12.50 6 8.30 10 13.90 25 34.70 Total 38 52.80 13 18,10 21 29,20 72 100,00 Table 2 the results show that QoL is mainly classified into three levels: excellent (38.90%), poor (34.70%) and average (26.40%). Furthermore, when analyzing the seven dimensions of QoL, it can be observed that all of them reached high percentages at the excellent level. Firstly, Functional Limitation obtained 44.40%, followed by Physical Pain which obtained 52.80%. Likewise, Psychological Discomfort reached 54.20%, while Physical and Psychological Disability both registered 69.40%. On the other hand, Social Disability reached 76.40% and, finally, Handicap reached the highest percentage with 83.30%. Table 2. Quality of Life Level and its dimensionsof the healthcare staff of a Level II-1 Hospital in Northern Peru, 2024. Rho Spearman Next. Pseudo R Nagelkerke Next. 0.391 0.001 0.198 0.001 CV CV Dimensions Limitation functional Pain physical Discomfort psychological Physical disability Inability psychological Social incapacity Handicap Levels N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Excellent 28 38.90 32 44.40 38 52.80 39 54.20 50 69.40 50 69.40 55 76.40 60 83.30 Regular 19 26.40 28 38.90 23 31.90 22 30.60 18 25.00 18 25.00 14 19.40 10 13.90 Bad 25 34.70 12 16.70 11 15.30 11 15.30 4 5.60 4 5.60 3 4.20 2 2.80 Total 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 Table 3 indicates that the Oral Health Perception (OHP) is mainly distributed in three levels: low (52.80%), excellent (29.20%) and regular (18.00%). When examining the different dimensions, it was identified that the Knowledge Perception registered 100% at a low level. On the other hand, the Attitude Perception showed 44.4% at the low level, while the Behavior Perception was located at 62.5% at the regular level. Table 3. Level of Perception of Oral Health and its dimensions in healthcare personnelfrom a level II-1 hospital in Northern Peru, 2024. PSB PSB Dimensions Perception of knowledge Attitude perception Perception of behavior Levels N % N % N % N % Low 38 52.80 72 100.00 32 44.40 15 20.80 Regular 13 18.00 0 0.00 31 43.10 45 62.50 Excellent 21 29.20 0 0.00 9 12.50 12 16.70 Total 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 72 100.00 Table 4 presents a detailed analysis that shows the existing relationships between the dimensions of Quality of Life (QoL) and the Perception of Oral Health (POH), highlighting important differences in the magnitude of these associations. In particular, the dimension corresponding to psychological distress showed the most significant connection with POH, supported by a moderate correlation coefficient (r = 0.421) and a solid level of statistical significance (p = 0.000). Likewise, Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R square obtained a value of 0.111 (p = 0.027), which explains that this dimension predicts 11.1% of the variability of POH. In turn, physical disability showed a significant association with POH, although with a smaller effect size than the previous dimension. The correlation coefficient was 0.319 (p = 0.006), while the value of the Pseudo R square was 0.167 (p = 0.004), indicating a 16.7% effect on PSB. In contrast, the dimension associated with functional limitations indicated a much weaker relationship with PSB, with a correlation coefficient of 0.096 (p = 0.424) and a Pseudo R square of 0.014 (p = 0.649), suggesting a practically null effect on the target variable. Table 4. Relationship between the dimensions of theQuality of life with the perception of oral healthof the staff of a level II-1 hospital in La Libertad, 2024. Functional limitation Oral Health Perception Inferential analysis Low Regular Excellent Total Rho Spearman Next. Pseudo R Nagelkerke Next. N % N % N % N % Excellent 18 25.00 7 9.70 7 9.70 32 44.40 0.096 0.424 0.014 0.649 Regular 15 20.80 3 4.20 10 13.90 28 38.90 Bad 5 6.90 3 4.20 4 5.60 12 16.70 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Pain physical PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 24 33.30 7 9.70 7 9.70 38 52.80 0.266 0.024 0.093 0.049 Regular 12 16.70 2 2.80 9 12.50 23 31.90 Bad 2 2.80 4 5.60 5 6.90 11 15.30 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Discomfort psychological PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 26 36.10 6 8.30 7 9.70 39 54.20 0.421 0.000 0.111 0.027 Regular 8 11.10 5 6.90 9 12.50 22 30.60 Bad 4 5.60 2 2.80 5 6.90 11 15.30 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Physical disability PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 30 41.70 8 11.10 12 16.70 50 69.40 0.319 0.006 0.167 0.004 Regular 8 11.10 5 6.90 5 6.90 18 25.00 Bad 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 5.60 4 5.60 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Inability psychological PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 30 41.70 8 11.10 12 16.70 50 69.40 0.232 0.050 0.167 0.004 Regular 8 11.10 5 6.90 5 6.90 18 25.00 Bad 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 5.60 4 5.60 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Inability social PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 31 43.10 11 15.30 13 18.10 55 76.40 0.242 0.040 0.124 0.017 Regular 7 9.70 2 2.80 5 6.90 14 19.40 Bad 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.20 3 4.20 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Handicap PSB Total Low Regular Excellent N % N % N % N % Excellent 36 50.00 9 12.50 15 20.80 60 83.30 0.298 0.011 0.131 0.013 Regular 2 2.80 4 5.60 4 5.60 10 13.90 Bad 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.80 2 2.80 Total 38 52.80 13 18.10 21 29.20 72 100.00 Overall, these findings confirm that a positive relationship was found between the dimensions of quality of life and oral health problems. However, it is clear that the dimensions of psychological distress and physical disability have a greater influence on PSB, which underlines the need to implement specific interventions targeting these critical areas. Discussion Quality of life (QoL) and oral health perception (OHP) are essential elements that directly influence the general well-being of hospital staff. In this study, the relationship between these variables was established in a total of 72 workers from a hospital located in the northern part of Peru during the year 2024, with the purpose of identifying and establishing areas of opportunity that allow the execution of strategies that address the specific needs of the group. First, the data presented in Table 1 show that there is a positive correlation of low level (r = 0.391), but statistically significant (p < 0.05). In addition, it was shown that QoL influences OHP by 19.8%. It should be noted that the highest frequency of cases corresponds to healthcare personnel who reported an optimal QoL, despite experiencing low levels of OHP (29.2%). These findings show similarities with those obtained by Miranda and Alcocer in 2021, who found that the sociodemographic characteristics of older adults intervene in the perception of QoL and its link with oral health, without generating significant negative impacts. In their study, it was identified that a high percentage of participants maintained outstanding (45.4%) or moderate (34.6%) levels of QoL. Thus, when health professionals experience a favorable QoL status, problems associated with oral health tend to go unnoticed, since they do not significantly interfere with their daily activities or their work performance. 2 , 10 Table 2 shows that quality of life (QoL) is distributed into three main categories: excellent with 38.9%, poor with 34.7% and average with 26.4%. In addition, when analyzing the seven dimensions of QoL, it is observed that all of them reached high percentages at the excellent level. Firstly, Functional Limitation obtained 44.40%, followed by Physical Pain which obtained 52.80%. Likewise, Psychological Discomfort reached 54.20%, while Physical and Psychological Disability both registered 69.40%. On the other hand, Social Disability reached 76.40% and, finally, Handicap reached the highest percentage with 83.30%. TheseData show similarity with those obtained by Espinoza et al. (2022), who conducted a study on QoL and its link to the oral health of members of a geriatric center in Lima. Their findings revealed that QoL was excellent in 66.8% of cases and that oral health did not negatively impact this perception. 32 These results can be explained by the importance that health personnel attach to the care of their oral health, which is reflected in a positive perception of their QoL. Theory suggests that good oral health is closely related to a better quality of life, as it reduces pain and discomfort, and improves functional and social capacity. 33 Table 3 presents the most relevant data on PSB and its dimensions in the healthcare staff of a hospital in the north of Peru. PSB was mainly distributed in three levels: low (52.8%), excellent (29.2%) and regular (18.0%). Likewise, the specific dimensions when analyzed, showed that the low level predominated at 100% regarding Knowledge Perception. For its part, Attitude Perception registered 44.4% also at a low level. Finally, Behavior Perception was mostly located at the regular level with 62.5%. These findings differ considerably from previous studies, such as that of López (2021), who indicated that the level of knowledge about oral health in healthcare workers at Hospital II EsSalud during the Covid-19 pandemic was high, reaching 81.5%, which shows a good command of this dimension in this context. 34 Therefore, the limited perception of knowledge could be linked to the lack of constant training programs in oral health (OH) aimed at health personnel. This is in line with previous studies that highlight that training and education are essential elements to strengthen knowledge and promote adequate OH practices. On the other hand, attitude and behavior not only reflect the degree of knowledge, but also the cultural beliefs and traditions related to OH, which can influence the adoption of preventive habits and the search for appropriate treatments. 35 , 36 Table 4 presents the results on the relationship between functional limitation and oral health problems (OHP) in workers. It was observed that the highest percentage corresponds to those with an excellent quality of life (QoL), but with low OHP, representing 25.0%. However, statistical analysis showed that there is no significant correlation (r = 0.096) or a relevant influence between this dimension and the variable (p > 0.05). When comparing these results with previous research, similar findings are identified. Like García-Cortés et al. (2020) reported that OHP did not show a statistically significant relationship with QoL in a study conducted with health professionals in Spain. 37 Similarly, López-Jiménez et al. (2019) reported that, although functional limitations existed, these did not significantly affect OHP in a sample of nurses in Mexico. 38 On the other hand, some studies have found a significant relationship between these variables in different contexts. For example, Martínez-Rodríguez et al. (2018) found that functional limitations did affect PSB in a sample of older adults in Chile. 39 Regarding the influence of physical pain and oral health problems (OHP) in workers, a low intensity positive correlation was identified (r = 0.266), with a limited influence of 9.3% of this dimension on OHP. Likewise, the highest percentage was found in workers with excellent CV, but with low OHP (33.30%). These data are similar to the research by Campos et al. (2014) who conducted an analysis of how job performance is affected by alterations in the oral cavity and that in relation to physical pain, this had a negative influence of 82.90%. 40 This indicates that the absence of physical pain attributed to alterations in the oral cavity can lead to OHP going unnoticed. 41 Similarly, when evaluating the link between psychological distress and PSB in workers, a moderate correlation (r = 0.421) was observed with a high level of statistical significance (p < 0.01) and a relevant influence of 11.1% of this dimension on PSB. The highest percentage belongs to workers with excellent CV, but with low PSB (36.10). These results are similar to those found by Espinoza (2017), who identified a negative impact of 61.4% in relation to psychological distress. 42 This suggests that the absence of psychological distress related to the oral cavity may lead to PSB not being considered. 41 Regarding the link between physical disability and PSB in workers, a significant correlation of low magnitude was observed (r = 0.319, p < 0.05), with a notable influence of 16.7% of this dimension on the Perception of Oral Health (PSB). These findings contrast with the results of Bellamy and Moreno (2014), who reported that physical disability was one of the most affected dimensions in patients with removable prostheses and tooth loss, reaching 32.5%. 43 Thus, when physical disability is absent, PSB is unnoticed; and, on the contrary, if this dimension is present, SB is prioritized. 44 Likewise, in relation to psychological incapacity and PSB of workers, a low correlation was identified (r = 0.232) with a significant influence of 16.7% on PSB. In addition, the highest percentage corresponded to those workers with an excellent quality of life and low PSB (41.7%). Similarly, when psychological incapacity 42 is at a regular level, PSB is located at regular or excellent levels, with 6.9% in both cases. These findings agree with what was reported by Espinoza (2017), who showed a negative influence of oral health on QoL, reflecting an impact of 31.5% in relation to psychological incapacity. In this sense, when workers do not present psychological incapacity, PSB is usually not a priority. In contrast, when there is psychological incapacity, this favors the adoption of actions that directly influence oral health. 44 Regarding the link between social disability and PSB of the hospital’s care workers, a significant correlation (p<0.05) was found, low (r = 0.242) and a significant influence of 12.4% of the dimension on PSB. On the other hand, the highest percentage was reached by workers with excellent QoL, but with low PSB (43.10%). Likewise, if the social disability is of a bad level, the PSB is exclusively outstanding (4.20%). These data can be contrasted with that evidenced by Espinoza (2017), who revealed the negative association of Oral Health in QoL, with a negative impact of 23.40% regarding social disability. 42 Therefore, when workers do not present social disability, PSB is not considered important; otherwise, if workers present social disability, this favors practical behaviors that influence SO. 45 Finally, regarding the link between disability and workers’ PSB, a significant correlation of low magnitude was identified (r = 0.298, p < 0.05), with a 13.1% influence of this dimension on the Perception of Oral Health (PSB). In addition, the highest percentage corresponded to workers with excellent quality of life and low PSB, reaching 50.0%. Similarly, when disability is present at moderate levels, PSB was distributed between excellent and regular, with 5.6% in each category. These data are similar to those reported by Espinoza et al. (2022), who showed a negative link between oral health and QoL, reflecting an impact of 17.0% in relation to disability. 32 Thus, when workers do not show signs of disability, PSB is often left in the background. On the contrary, in those cases where there is a disability, this encourages the adoption of specific actions and practices that have a direct impact on oral health. 45 Limitations of the study Although the present study provides relevant information on the relationship between Quality of Life (QoL) and the perception of Oral Health Perception (OHP) in hospital care staff, it is important to consider certain limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional approach characteristic of exploratory studies such as this one restricts the ability to identify causal relationships between variables. However, the results present a good basis for further longitudinal research, since they could assess how these relationships vary over time. Second, although the sample is representative of a level II-1 hospital in northern Peru, replicating this study in other institutions and other locations around the country could increase the generalizability of the results and enhance the identification of common patterns in different contexts. Finally, self-assessment based on questionnaires, although validated and reliable, is subject to the subjective factors of the participant. However, the application of standardized and widely recognized instruments favors the comparability and validity of the data reported. Implications of the study The findings highlight the consideration of oral health as one of the central components of the comprehensive well-being of hospital care staff. The significant correlation between QoL and PSB, the influence of certain dimensions such as physical disability and psychological disability, among others, highlights the need for interventions that can jointly address oral health and psychosocial factors, since these could help to perceive personal well-being, as well as the quality of the service offered to patients. Finally, the results have global implications, becoming the need for multidimensional and collaborative approaches in hospital health spaces that act on sustainable development and well-being. Conclusion The study shows a significant correlation between Quality of Life (QoL) and Oral Health Perception in healthcare workers at a level II-1 hospital located in the north of Peru, with Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.391 and Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R squared of 0.198, both with significance at a p level of 0.001. Higher quality of life has a significant relationship with a more favorable oral health perception. In addition, significant correlations were found in the dimensions of physical disability (Rho = 0.319, p < 0.05, Nagelkerke = 0.167), psychological (Rho = 0.232, p = 0.05, Nagelkerke = 0.167), social (Rho = 0.242, p < 0.05, Nagelkerke = 0.124) and handicap (Rho = 0.298, p < 0.05, Nagelkerke = 0.131). These results underline the need to develop the QoL of workers, so that they can subsequently improve their perception and care of oral health, also impacting on the performance and well-being of the individual. Thus, the results present implications at a global level, highlighting the importance of integrative models throughout different areas of the world. Recommendations Develop continuing education programs: Create oral health-focused training strategies for hospital staff, highlighting the relevance of oral hygiene, prevention of dental diseases and their impact on QoL and professional performance. These initiatives should be incorporated into existing workplace wellness plans. Improve access to dental services: Implement frequent dental services within the hospital, with flexible schedules that adjust to staff shifts. This would facilitate prevention, timely treatment and contribute to a better perception of oral health. Monitoring oral health and QoL: Integrate standardized tools such as the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI into regular staff assessments. These measurements would allow for assessing the impact of implemented interventions and ensure a comprehensive approach to promoting overall well-being. Ethics and consent This study was conducted under strict principles of scientific integrity and in compliance with the Code of Ethics for Research of the César Vallejo University (Universidad César Vallejo, 2024). 28 Likewise, international ethical standards were rigorously respected, including the provisions of the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2016), the guidelines of the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979) and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013). 29 – 31 The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Master’s Program in Health Services Management at César Vallejo University, through the Resolution of the Vice-rectorate for Research No. 405-2024-VI-UCV, issued on January 30, 2025, with official confirmation on February 11, 2025. The ethics committee was made up of: president: Dr. Roberto Santiago Bellido García, secretary: Dr. Diaz Mujica Juana Yris, External member: Mgtr. Melecio Belisario Carlos Reyes, Alternate member: Dr. Patricia Luz Figueroa Garrido, Added member: Mtro. Omar Arturo Lizárraga Carrasco, Added member: Dr. Meneses La Riva Mónica Elisa. Likewise, all participants signed a written informed consent, in which the objectives, procedures, benefits, and risks of the study were detailed. Only those who fully understood and accepted these conditions participated. Furthermore, the university’s ethical policies were respected, ensuring the originality and rigor of the work, with a level of textual similarity of less than 17% in the documents generated. Data availability Underlying data Zenodo: Dataset: Calidad de vida y percepción de salud bucal del personal hospitalario en Trujillo, Perú (2024)., Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 . 46 This project contains the following underlying data: • DATABASE es.en.xls The project contains the following underlying data: a CSV file titled “QoL_OHP_Responses.csv” that includes the anonymized responses to the CV and PSB questionnaires, and a PDF file titled “QoL_OHP_Metadata.pdf” that provides the metadata and description of the variables. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References 1. FDI: Vision 2030: Providing optimal oral health for all.2021 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source Reference Source 2. Franco-Giraldo A: Oral health, between systemic health and public health. Univ Salud. 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 23 (3): 291–300. Publisher Full Text 3. Espinosa Patrón CE, Encarnación Contreras WB: Impact of oral health on the quality of life in 11 and 12-year-old schoolchildren in the commune of Los Álamos in the province of Arauco, Bio Bio region, Chile in 2019. Lima: Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; 2020. Reference Source 4. World Health Organization: Oral health. Who.int; 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 5. Gofur NRP, Aghasy AZZ, Gofur ARP: Analysis of the spatial distribution of dentists, dental technicians and dental therapists in Indonesia. F1000Res. 2021; 10 : 220. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Ministry of Health of Chile: National Health Survey Report 2016-2017: Oral Health. Minsal.cl; 2019 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 7. Carrasco-Labra A, Verdugo-Paiva F, Matanhire-Zihanzu CN, et al. : Barriers and facilitators to oral health policy development, dissemination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in the WHO African Region: A scoping review protocol. F1000Res. 2024; 12 : 1160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 8. UNESCO: Quality of life. Unesco.org; 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 9. United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Report 2023/2024. Undp.org; 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 10. Diaz-Reissner CV, Casas-García I, Roldán-Merino J: Oral Health-Related Quality of Life: Impact of Various Dental Clinical Situations and Socio-Demographic Factors. Int. J. Odontostomatol. 2017; 11 (1): 31–39. Publisher Full Text 11. López-Martínez BE, Aragón-Castillo JM, Muñoz-Palomeque M, et al. : Quality of working life and job performance in physicians at the Mexican Social Security Institute, in the state of Chiapas. Rev. Fac. Med. Hum. 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 17]; 21 (2): 316–325. Publisher Full Text 12. Díaz-Reissner C, Roldán-Merino J, Casas I: Self-perception of health and quality of life related to oral health. Mem. Inst. Investig. Cienc. Salud. 2022; 20 (1): 14–21. Publisher Full Text 13. De La Hoz Perafan R, Romo Pérez C, Fragozo Montesino MF: Effect of periodontitis severity on oral health-related quality of life. Odontoestomatologia. 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 17]; 24 (40). Publisher Full Text 14. Soto Paredes JF: Level of oral health practices in health professionals of the Huaura-Oyon Network, Lima-Peru, 2021.2022 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 15. Ramirez Ramos CM: Decision-making and work productivity in health personnel of a public hospital, Lima 2022. Lima (PE): César Vallejo University; 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 19]. Reference Source 16. Castro Maldonado JJ, Gómez Macho LK, Camargo Casallas E: Applied research and experimental development in strengthening the skills of 21st century society. Tecnura. 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 27 (75): 140–174. Publisher Full Text 17. OECD, Eurostat: Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. 4th ed.OECD; 2018 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Publisher Full Text 18. Sánchez Flores FA: Epistemic Foundations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Consensus and Disagreement. Rev. Digit. Investig. Doc. Univ. 2019 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 13 (1): 101–122. Publisher Full Text 19. Huaire Inacio EJ: Research method.2019 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source Reference Source 20. Mendoza BW: How economists research. Guide to developing and preparing a research project. Fondo Editorial PUCP. 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 21. Slade GD, Spencer AJ: Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent. Health. 1994 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 11 (1): 3–11. PubMed Abstract 22. Jiménez Férez J, Esquivel Hernández RI, Martínez VN: Oral health perception, quality of life and subjective well-being in the elderly. Adm. Odontol. Mex. 2006 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 63 (5): 181–184. Reference Source 23. Runde DF, Bandura R, Méndez Leal E: Innovative Data Collection Methods for International Development.2022 Jan 26 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source Reference Source 24. Diaz Narváez VP: LOGISTICAL REGRESSION AND CLINICAL DECISIONS. Nutr. Hosp. 2017; 34 (6): 1505. Publisher Full Text 25. IBM: SPSS statistics subscription - classic - Logistic Regression. Ibm.com; 2023 Aug 4 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 26. Martínez Ortega RM, Tuya Pendás LC, Martínez Ortega M, et al. : THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF SPEARMAN’S RANKS CHARACTERIZATION. Rev haban cienc méd. 2009 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 8 (2). Reference Source 27. Ruiz Mitjana L: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test: what it is and how it is used in statistics. pymOrganization; 2019 May 28 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 28. César Vallejo University: Code of Ethics in Research of César Vallejo University. Collegesidekick.com; 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 23]. Reference Source 29. CIOMS: International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. Reference Source 30. National Commission for the Protection of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: THE BELMONT REPORT. Bioeticayderecho.ub.edu.1979 [cited 2024 Aug 23]. Reference Source 31. World Medical Association: WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Wma.net; 2013 [cited 2024 Aug 23]. Reference Source 32. Espinoza Espinoza DA, Soto Peñaloza D, García Rupaya CR, et al. : Quality of life related to oral health at the San Isidro Senior Citizens Center, Lima. Rev. Cuba. Estomatol. 2022; 59 (4). Reference Source 33. Locker D: Oral health and quality of life. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2004 [cited 2024 Aug 17]; 2 (Suppl 1): 247–253. Reference Source 34. López García JF: Level of knowledge of oral health of health personnel at Hospital II Abancay EsSalud 2021 in times of Covid – 19. San Juan Bautista Private University; 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. [Degree thesis]. Reference Source 35. Remuzgo Huamán M, Remuzgo Huamán SE: Management of public oral health policies from the perspective of local operators and managers in Ate-Vitarte and Santa Anita, 2017. Horiz. Med. 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 22 (3): e1975. Publisher Full Text 36. Pineda Rivera J, Campoverde Romero R, Salazar Dolberg C: Perception, knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding oral health. A review study. More Vita. 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 4 (3): 74–86. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 37. García-Cortés A, Pérez-López J, Martínez-Rodríguez M, et al. : Oral health perception and quality of life in health professionals. Rev. Salud Pública. 2020 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 22 (3): 123–130. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 38. López-Jiménez M, González-Pérez A, Rodríguez-Martínez L, et al. : Quality of life and oral health in nurses. Rev. Enferm. 2019 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 37 (2): 45–52. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 39. Martínez-Rodríguez F, Gómez-López J, Sánchez-Pérez L, et al. : Relationship between functional limitations and perception of oral health in older adults. Rev. Geriatr. 2018 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 34 (1): 67–74. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 40. Campos Guerra MJ, Greco RM, Gonçalves Leite IC, et al. : Impact of oral health conditions on the quality of life of workers. One Hundred Saude Colet. 2014 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 19 (12): 4777–4786. Publisher Full Text 41. Díaz Cárdenas S, Arrieta Vergara K, Ramos MK: Impact of Oral Health on the Quality of Life of Older Adults. Rev. Clin. Med. Fam. 2012 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 5 (1): 9–16. Publisher Full Text 42. Espinoza Espinoza DAK: Quality of life in relation to oral health in older adults attending the San Isidro Senior Center. Lima: Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; 2017 [cited 2024 Aug 15]. [Master’s Thesis]. Reference Source 43. Bellamy Ortiz CL, Moreno Altamirano A: Relationship between oral health-related quality of life, tooth loss and removable prosthesis in adults over 50 years of age who are IMSS beneficiaries. Av. Odontoestomatol. 2014 [cited 2024 Aug 15]; 30 (4): 195–203. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 44. León Mantero D, Moya Rivera P, Vidal Gamboa C: Oral health intervention to modify the quality of life in vulnerable women. Rev Cubana Salud Pública. 2020 [cited 2024 Aug 19]; 45 (3): e1628. Reference Source 45. Carrillo Espichán CO: Oral health and quality of life of police personnel using the PNP Dental Center, 2020. Lima (PE): Ricardo Palma University; 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 19]. Reference Source 46. Zenodo: Quality of Life (QoL) and Oral Health Perception (OHP) among Hospital Staff. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 6 VERSION 6 PUBLISHED 26 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 2 Graduate School of, Cesar Vallejo University, Lima, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 3 School of Human Medicine, Private University of the North, Trujillo, Lima Norte, 13001, Peru Miryam Lora Loza Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sheyla del Pilar Alvarado-Romero Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Katia Ninozca Flores Ledesma Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nancy Cuenca Robles Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing David Rene Rodríguez Díaz Roles: Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (6) version 6 Revised Published: 28 Jan 2026, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.6 version 5 Revised Published: 10 Dec 2025, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.5 version 4 Revised Published: 13 Oct 2025, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.4 version 3 Revised Published: 16 Jun 2025, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.3 version 2 Revised Published: 02 May 2025, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.2 version 1 Published: 26 Feb 2025, 14:238 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.1 Copyright © 2025 Lora Loza M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Lora Loza M, Alvarado-Romero SdP, Flores Ledesma KN et al. Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161146.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 26 Feb 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ramli H. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371450 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371450 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Apr 2025 Haslinda Ramli , University Sains Islam Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371450 The study explores the relationship between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff. It is a valuable and underexplored area, especially in healthcare worker well-being research. However, several sections of the manuscript require clarifications and ... Continue reading READ ALL The study explores the relationship between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff. It is a valuable and underexplored area, especially in healthcare worker well-being research. However, several sections of the manuscript require clarifications and revisions: Title: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript implies a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. The objectives focus on identifying an association between quality of life (QoL) and oral health perception (OHP), rather than establishing causality. Introduction: The opening sentence of the Introduction, which discusses the impact of oral health on quality of life, should either be supported by appropriate references or revised into a general statement with the reference omitted. Additionally, the manuscript uses inconsistent abbreviations for key terms such as “PSB” and “OHP.” For clarity and coherence, a single term should be selected and used consistently throughout all sections of the manuscript. Methodology: 1) The OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires are appropriate, validated tools for measuring oral health related QoL and oral health perceptions, respectively. Their reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8) supports the soundness of the data collected. 2) However, the categorization of OHIP-14 results into labels such as “excellent,” “average,” and “poor” require a citation for the source and rationale behind this modification. 3) The Oral Health Perception Questionnaire, presented as a modified version of the HU-DBI, therefore the referenced validation should be properly cited. 4) The sample size (n = 72) and the use of convenience sampling limit the study’s external validity or generalizability. It is also important to justify whether this sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful associations. Results: The use of Spearman correlation and ordinal logistic regression is appropriate. However, the manuscript does not report confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlation coefficients or regression results. Although the correlation observed (ρ = 0.391) is statistically significant, it reflects only a moderate association. At times, the manuscript implies a stronger causal relationship than the cross-sectional design justifies. To ensure accuracy, causal language should be softened in the abstract and conclusion Discussion & conclusion: The observed association between OHP and QoL is modest, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. Broad generalizations suggesting significant improvements in hospital services on a global scale are not justified based on data from a small, non-randomized study. References: Cruzado et al. (2024) should be included Writing and Language Issues: Language editing is needed to improve clarity and flow. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Periodontology, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Oral Health Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ramli H. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371450 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371450 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our study. Below we present our responses to each comment, along with the corresponding actions taken: 1. **Use of the word “Impact” in the title** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised the title to remove any causal implications. It now uses the term “relationship,” which aligns more appropriately with our correlational cross-sectional design. 2. **Abbreviations Consistency** ➤ *Action taken:* The abbreviation “OHP” (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized and used consistently throughout the entire manuscript. 3. **Justification for OHIP-14 Categories** ➤ *Action taken:* We included justification based on prior studies by Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), which validated the categorical thresholds used in our classification. 4. **HU-DBI Validation** ➤ *Action taken:* We clarified that the HU-DBI instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and internally validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024). Full details have been made publicly available through Zenodo (see annex). 5. **Confidence Intervals and Nagelkerke’s R²** ➤ *Action taken:* We included confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² values in both the results section and the associated tables. 6. **Causal Language in Abstract and Conclusion** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised all instances of causal language, replacing them with neutral expressions that more accurately indicate association or correlation. 7. **English Grammar and Flow** ➤ *Action taken:* The manuscript has undergone a full English language review to improve fluency, readability, and academic tone. 8. **Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024)** ➤ *Action taken:* This reference has been removed, as it was not cited nor included in the final reference list. We hope these comprehensive revisions address your concerns and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. We are grateful for your expert guidance. Sincerely, **Miryam Griselda Lora Loza** (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our study. Below we present our responses to each comment, along with the corresponding actions taken: 1. **Use of the word “Impact” in the title** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised the title to remove any causal implications. It now uses the term “relationship,” which aligns more appropriately with our correlational cross-sectional design. 2. **Abbreviations Consistency** ➤ *Action taken:* The abbreviation “OHP” (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized and used consistently throughout the entire manuscript. 3. **Justification for OHIP-14 Categories** ➤ *Action taken:* We included justification based on prior studies by Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), which validated the categorical thresholds used in our classification. 4. **HU-DBI Validation** ➤ *Action taken:* We clarified that the HU-DBI instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and internally validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024). Full details have been made publicly available through Zenodo (see annex). 5. **Confidence Intervals and Nagelkerke’s R²** ➤ *Action taken:* We included confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² values in both the results section and the associated tables. 6. **Causal Language in Abstract and Conclusion** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised all instances of causal language, replacing them with neutral expressions that more accurately indicate association or correlation. 7. **English Grammar and Flow** ➤ *Action taken:* The manuscript has undergone a full English language review to improve fluency, readability, and academic tone. 8. **Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024)** ➤ *Action taken:* This reference has been removed, as it was not cited nor included in the final reference list. We hope these comprehensive revisions address your concerns and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. We are grateful for your expert guidance. Sincerely, **Miryam Griselda Lora Loza** (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: Use of the term “impact” in the title ➤ Action taken: The title has been modified to eliminate any causal language. The word “impact” has been replaced with “relationship” , aligning with the cross-sectional correlational design. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") ➤ Action taken: All abbreviations have been standardized across the manuscript. We consistently use “OHP” to refer to Oral Health Perception. Lack of justification for OHIP-14 categories ➤ Action taken: We added references to Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022) , who used and validated these category thresholds in similar contexts. HU-DBI validation not clearly cited ➤ Action taken: We clarified that the questionnaire was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated internally by Alvarado & Lora (2024) . Full instruments and validation details have been published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Lack of Confidence Intervals (CI) and pseudo R² ➤ Action taken: Confidence intervals and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been added in the results and relevant tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusion ➤ Action taken: All expressions implying causality were removed and replaced with appropriate associative terminology. Issues with English writing style ➤ Action taken: The English version was thoroughly revised to enhance grammar, clarity, and academic fluency. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) ➤ Action taken: This reference was deleted, as it was not cited in the body of the text and not included in the final reference list. We are grateful for your constructive comments and are confident that these revisions have improved the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) [email protected] Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: Use of the term “impact” in the title ➤ Action taken: The title has been modified to eliminate any causal language. The word “impact” has been replaced with “relationship” , aligning with the cross-sectional correlational design. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") ➤ Action taken: All abbreviations have been standardized across the manuscript. We consistently use “OHP” to refer to Oral Health Perception. Lack of justification for OHIP-14 categories ➤ Action taken: We added references to Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022) , who used and validated these category thresholds in similar contexts. HU-DBI validation not clearly cited ➤ Action taken: We clarified that the questionnaire was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated internally by Alvarado & Lora (2024) . Full instruments and validation details have been published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Lack of Confidence Intervals (CI) and pseudo R² ➤ Action taken: Confidence intervals and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been added in the results and relevant tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusion ➤ Action taken: All expressions implying causality were removed and replaced with appropriate associative terminology. Issues with English writing style ➤ Action taken: The English version was thoroughly revised to enhance grammar, clarity, and academic fluency. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) ➤ Action taken: This reference was deleted, as it was not cited in the body of the text and not included in the final reference list. We are grateful for your constructive comments and are confident that these revisions have improved the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) [email protected] Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. Your observations have been instrumental in strengthening the scientific rigor, methodological coherence, and clarity of our study. Below, we outline our responses to each of the points you raised: Use of the term "impact" in the title Action taken: The original title was modified to remove any causal connotation. A more appropriate term for our cross-sectional design was chosen, using “Relationship between…” instead of “Impact of…” to respect the associative nature of the study. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") Action taken: The use of the abbreviation OHP (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized throughout the document, eliminating any terminological ambiguity. Lack of justification for the OHIP-14 categories Action taken: Relevant references were added, including Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), who have previously used and validated the categories employed in the analysis of the OHIP-14 scale. Validation of the HU-DBI questionnaire not properly cited Action taken: It has been clarified that the instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024), with these sources now properly cited. Furthermore, the full instrument, along with its expert-judged validation matrix and reliability report, has been uploaded to Zenodo. Availability of the full instruments Action taken: Complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) are now publicly available on Zenodo, including the validation matrices, internal reliability analysis, and the anonymized database. Database and statistical results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex with instruments and validation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Absence of confidence intervals and fit indicators (pseudo R²) Action taken: Confidence intervals (95% CI) and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been included in the results section and respective tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusions Action taken: The language used was carefully revised, replacing all causal expressions with associative or relational formulations, consistent with the correlational cross-sectional design of the study. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) Action taken: This reference has been removed, as it was not cited in the text and does not appear in the final list of references. We hope that the modifications made meet your expectations and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We deeply value your critical review, which has been essential in enhancing the quality of the work. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. Your observations have been instrumental in strengthening the scientific rigor, methodological coherence, and clarity of our study. Below, we outline our responses to each of the points you raised: Use of the term "impact" in the title Action taken: The original title was modified to remove any causal connotation. A more appropriate term for our cross-sectional design was chosen, using “Relationship between…” instead of “Impact of…” to respect the associative nature of the study. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") Action taken: The use of the abbreviation OHP (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized throughout the document, eliminating any terminological ambiguity. Lack of justification for the OHIP-14 categories Action taken: Relevant references were added, including Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), who have previously used and validated the categories employed in the analysis of the OHIP-14 scale. Validation of the HU-DBI questionnaire not properly cited Action taken: It has been clarified that the instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024), with these sources now properly cited. Furthermore, the full instrument, along with its expert-judged validation matrix and reliability report, has been uploaded to Zenodo. Availability of the full instruments Action taken: Complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) are now publicly available on Zenodo, including the validation matrices, internal reliability analysis, and the anonymized database. Database and statistical results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex with instruments and validation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Absence of confidence intervals and fit indicators (pseudo R²) Action taken: Confidence intervals (95% CI) and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been included in the results section and respective tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusions Action taken: The language used was carefully revised, replacing all causal expressions with associative or relational formulations, consistent with the correlational cross-sectional design of the study. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) Action taken: This reference has been removed, as it was not cited in the text and does not appear in the final list of references. We hope that the modifications made meet your expectations and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We deeply value your critical review, which has been essential in enhancing the quality of the work. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 16 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The term "impact" was replaced with "relationship" to more accurately reflect the correlational nature of the study, avoiding causal implications inconsistent with our cross-sectional design. Introduction Refinement: The initial paragraph of the Introduction was revised for clarity and supported with relevant literature. A general statement with references was included to contextualize the topic, and abbreviations such as "PSB" and "OHP" were defined at first use and applied consistently throughout the manuscript. Abbreviation Clarification: In line with your suggestion, all undefined abbreviations were revised, and full terms were provided to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. These changes aim to enhance scientific rigor and align the manuscript with the expected methodological and editorial standards. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The term "impact" was replaced with "relationship" to more accurately reflect the correlational nature of the study, avoiding causal implications inconsistent with our cross-sectional design. Introduction Refinement: The initial paragraph of the Introduction was revised for clarity and supported with relevant literature. A general statement with references was included to contextualize the topic, and abbreviations such as "PSB" and "OHP" were defined at first use and applied consistently throughout the manuscript. Abbreviation Clarification: In line with your suggestion, all undefined abbreviations were revised, and full terms were provided to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. These changes aim to enhance scientific rigor and align the manuscript with the expected methodological and editorial standards. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely ... Continue reading Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 2, Dr. Haslinda Ramli, for her insightful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each of her observations, along with the specific locations where the corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript. All modifications are clearly highlighted in the tracked version. 1. Title – Use of "impact" implies causality Comment: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript suggests a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. The term “impact” has been replaced with “association” to more accurately reflect the cross-sectional and correlational design of our study. The new title is: “Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff.” Changes made in: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections. 2. Introduction – First sentence implies causality and lacks citation Comment: The opening sentence of the Introduction should avoid implying causation and must be supported by references. Response: We have rewritten the sentence to avoid causal language and included a reference from the World Health Organization (2022) Global Oral Health Report . The revised sentence now reads: “Hospital staff’s perception of their oral health is associated with their overall oral health-related well-being (WHO, 2022).” Changes made in: Introduction, first paragraph. 3. Abbreviation inconsistency Comment: Please clarify the consistent use of abbreviations such as OHP, OHRQoL, and avoid unnecessary acronyms like PSB. Response: We reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all abbreviations. Only the essential acronyms remain: OHP (Oral Health Perception) and OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) . All others, including PSB, were removed or clarified at first mention. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially in Methods and Tables. 4. OHIP-14 classification – Categorical scores require source Comment: The use of qualitative classifications for OHIP-14 (e.g., excellent, poor) needs validation or removal. Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concern. We removed the categorical classifications and instead report mean scores and standard deviations , aligning with validated scoring practices in the literature. Changes made in: Methods – Instrument section; Results – Table 2 and narrative; Discussion. 5. HU-DBI instrument – Invalid reference Comment: The validation reference for the HU-DBI (Cruzado et al., 2024) is invalid or unavailable. Response: The incorrect reference has been removed. We clarified that the Spanish version of the HU-DBI was adapted and validated through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha . Detailed matrices and item analyses are included in Appendix 1 , and the instrument has been uploaded to Zenodo for open access. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments section; Supplementary Materials – Appendix 1; Zenodo link in footnote and References. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 . 6. Sample size and generalization Comment: Please explain the rationale for the sample size and the generalizability of findings. Response: A detailed explanation has been added. The sample size was calculated using G*Power (ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), requiring a minimum of 67 participants. We enrolled 72. Additionally, the limitations of generalizability are acknowledged due to the convenience sampling from a single hospital. Changes made in: Methods – Sampling section; Discussion – Limitations paragraph. 7. Confidence intervals in results Comment: Include 95% confidence intervals in correlation and regression results. Response: The Results section now reports 95% confidence intervals for Spearman’s correlations and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² estimates. This improves statistical transparency and interpretability. Changes made in: Results section – Table 3 and narrative. 8. Clarity of language Comment: Improve language clarity and avoid overgeneralization. Response: The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review using Grammarly Premium , ensuring clarity, precision, and academic tone. Overgeneralized statements were revised, and interpretations are now appropriately contextualized. The manuscript adheres to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. We truly appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. Her insights significantly improved the scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and linguistic clarity of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our work accordingly. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 2, Dr. Haslinda Ramli, for her insightful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each of her observations, along with the specific locations where the corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript. All modifications are clearly highlighted in the tracked version. 1. Title – Use of "impact" implies causality Comment: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript suggests a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. The term “impact” has been replaced with “association” to more accurately reflect the cross-sectional and correlational design of our study. The new title is: “Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff.” Changes made in: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections. 2. Introduction – First sentence implies causality and lacks citation Comment: The opening sentence of the Introduction should avoid implying causation and must be supported by references. Response: We have rewritten the sentence to avoid causal language and included a reference from the World Health Organization (2022) Global Oral Health Report . The revised sentence now reads: “Hospital staff’s perception of their oral health is associated with their overall oral health-related well-being (WHO, 2022).” Changes made in: Introduction, first paragraph. 3. Abbreviation inconsistency Comment: Please clarify the consistent use of abbreviations such as OHP, OHRQoL, and avoid unnecessary acronyms like PSB. Response: We reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all abbreviations. Only the essential acronyms remain: OHP (Oral Health Perception) and OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) . All others, including PSB, were removed or clarified at first mention. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially in Methods and Tables. 4. OHIP-14 classification – Categorical scores require source Comment: The use of qualitative classifications for OHIP-14 (e.g., excellent, poor) needs validation or removal. Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concern. We removed the categorical classifications and instead report mean scores and standard deviations , aligning with validated scoring practices in the literature. Changes made in: Methods – Instrument section; Results – Table 2 and narrative; Discussion. 5. HU-DBI instrument – Invalid reference Comment: The validation reference for the HU-DBI (Cruzado et al., 2024) is invalid or unavailable. Response: The incorrect reference has been removed. We clarified that the Spanish version of the HU-DBI was adapted and validated through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha . Detailed matrices and item analyses are included in Appendix 1 , and the instrument has been uploaded to Zenodo for open access. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments section; Supplementary Materials – Appendix 1; Zenodo link in footnote and References. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 . 6. Sample size and generalization Comment: Please explain the rationale for the sample size and the generalizability of findings. Response: A detailed explanation has been added. The sample size was calculated using G*Power (ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), requiring a minimum of 67 participants. We enrolled 72. Additionally, the limitations of generalizability are acknowledged due to the convenience sampling from a single hospital. Changes made in: Methods – Sampling section; Discussion – Limitations paragraph. 7. Confidence intervals in results Comment: Include 95% confidence intervals in correlation and regression results. Response: The Results section now reports 95% confidence intervals for Spearman’s correlations and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² estimates. This improves statistical transparency and interpretability. Changes made in: Results section – Table 3 and narrative. 8. Clarity of language Comment: Improve language clarity and avoid overgeneralization. Response: The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review using Grammarly Premium , ensuring clarity, precision, and academic tone. Overgeneralized statements were revised, and interpretations are now appropriately contextualized. The manuscript adheres to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. We truly appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. Her insights significantly improved the scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and linguistic clarity of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our work accordingly. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our study. Below we present our responses to each comment, along with the corresponding actions taken: 1. **Use of the word “Impact” in the title** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised the title to remove any causal implications. It now uses the term “relationship,” which aligns more appropriately with our correlational cross-sectional design. 2. **Abbreviations Consistency** ➤ *Action taken:* The abbreviation “OHP” (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized and used consistently throughout the entire manuscript. 3. **Justification for OHIP-14 Categories** ➤ *Action taken:* We included justification based on prior studies by Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), which validated the categorical thresholds used in our classification. 4. **HU-DBI Validation** ➤ *Action taken:* We clarified that the HU-DBI instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and internally validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024). Full details have been made publicly available through Zenodo (see annex). 5. **Confidence Intervals and Nagelkerke’s R²** ➤ *Action taken:* We included confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² values in both the results section and the associated tables. 6. **Causal Language in Abstract and Conclusion** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised all instances of causal language, replacing them with neutral expressions that more accurately indicate association or correlation. 7. **English Grammar and Flow** ➤ *Action taken:* The manuscript has undergone a full English language review to improve fluency, readability, and academic tone. 8. **Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024)** ➤ *Action taken:* This reference has been removed, as it was not cited nor included in the final reference list. We hope these comprehensive revisions address your concerns and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. We are grateful for your expert guidance. Sincerely, **Miryam Griselda Lora Loza** (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our study. Below we present our responses to each comment, along with the corresponding actions taken: 1. **Use of the word “Impact” in the title** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised the title to remove any causal implications. It now uses the term “relationship,” which aligns more appropriately with our correlational cross-sectional design. 2. **Abbreviations Consistency** ➤ *Action taken:* The abbreviation “OHP” (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized and used consistently throughout the entire manuscript. 3. **Justification for OHIP-14 Categories** ➤ *Action taken:* We included justification based on prior studies by Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), which validated the categorical thresholds used in our classification. 4. **HU-DBI Validation** ➤ *Action taken:* We clarified that the HU-DBI instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and internally validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024). Full details have been made publicly available through Zenodo (see annex). 5. **Confidence Intervals and Nagelkerke’s R²** ➤ *Action taken:* We included confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² values in both the results section and the associated tables. 6. **Causal Language in Abstract and Conclusion** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised all instances of causal language, replacing them with neutral expressions that more accurately indicate association or correlation. 7. **English Grammar and Flow** ➤ *Action taken:* The manuscript has undergone a full English language review to improve fluency, readability, and academic tone. 8. **Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024)** ➤ *Action taken:* This reference has been removed, as it was not cited nor included in the final reference list. We hope these comprehensive revisions address your concerns and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. We are grateful for your expert guidance. Sincerely, **Miryam Griselda Lora Loza** (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: Use of the term “impact” in the title ➤ Action taken: The title has been modified to eliminate any causal language. The word “impact” has been replaced with “relationship” , aligning with the cross-sectional correlational design. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") ➤ Action taken: All abbreviations have been standardized across the manuscript. We consistently use “OHP” to refer to Oral Health Perception. Lack of justification for OHIP-14 categories ➤ Action taken: We added references to Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022) , who used and validated these category thresholds in similar contexts. HU-DBI validation not clearly cited ➤ Action taken: We clarified that the questionnaire was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated internally by Alvarado & Lora (2024) . Full instruments and validation details have been published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Lack of Confidence Intervals (CI) and pseudo R² ➤ Action taken: Confidence intervals and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been added in the results and relevant tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusion ➤ Action taken: All expressions implying causality were removed and replaced with appropriate associative terminology. Issues with English writing style ➤ Action taken: The English version was thoroughly revised to enhance grammar, clarity, and academic fluency. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) ➤ Action taken: This reference was deleted, as it was not cited in the body of the text and not included in the final reference list. We are grateful for your constructive comments and are confident that these revisions have improved the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) [email protected] Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: Use of the term “impact” in the title ➤ Action taken: The title has been modified to eliminate any causal language. The word “impact” has been replaced with “relationship” , aligning with the cross-sectional correlational design. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") ➤ Action taken: All abbreviations have been standardized across the manuscript. We consistently use “OHP” to refer to Oral Health Perception. Lack of justification for OHIP-14 categories ➤ Action taken: We added references to Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022) , who used and validated these category thresholds in similar contexts. HU-DBI validation not clearly cited ➤ Action taken: We clarified that the questionnaire was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated internally by Alvarado & Lora (2024) . Full instruments and validation details have been published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Lack of Confidence Intervals (CI) and pseudo R² ➤ Action taken: Confidence intervals and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been added in the results and relevant tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusion ➤ Action taken: All expressions implying causality were removed and replaced with appropriate associative terminology. Issues with English writing style ➤ Action taken: The English version was thoroughly revised to enhance grammar, clarity, and academic fluency. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) ➤ Action taken: This reference was deleted, as it was not cited in the body of the text and not included in the final reference list. We are grateful for your constructive comments and are confident that these revisions have improved the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) [email protected] Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. Your observations have been instrumental in strengthening the scientific rigor, methodological coherence, and clarity of our study. Below, we outline our responses to each of the points you raised: Use of the term "impact" in the title Action taken: The original title was modified to remove any causal connotation. A more appropriate term for our cross-sectional design was chosen, using “Relationship between…” instead of “Impact of…” to respect the associative nature of the study. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") Action taken: The use of the abbreviation OHP (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized throughout the document, eliminating any terminological ambiguity. Lack of justification for the OHIP-14 categories Action taken: Relevant references were added, including Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), who have previously used and validated the categories employed in the analysis of the OHIP-14 scale. Validation of the HU-DBI questionnaire not properly cited Action taken: It has been clarified that the instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024), with these sources now properly cited. Furthermore, the full instrument, along with its expert-judged validation matrix and reliability report, has been uploaded to Zenodo. Availability of the full instruments Action taken: Complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) are now publicly available on Zenodo, including the validation matrices, internal reliability analysis, and the anonymized database. Database and statistical results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex with instruments and validation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Absence of confidence intervals and fit indicators (pseudo R²) Action taken: Confidence intervals (95% CI) and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been included in the results section and respective tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusions Action taken: The language used was carefully revised, replacing all causal expressions with associative or relational formulations, consistent with the correlational cross-sectional design of the study. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) Action taken: This reference has been removed, as it was not cited in the text and does not appear in the final list of references. We hope that the modifications made meet your expectations and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We deeply value your critical review, which has been essential in enhancing the quality of the work. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. Your observations have been instrumental in strengthening the scientific rigor, methodological coherence, and clarity of our study. Below, we outline our responses to each of the points you raised: Use of the term "impact" in the title Action taken: The original title was modified to remove any causal connotation. A more appropriate term for our cross-sectional design was chosen, using “Relationship between…” instead of “Impact of…” to respect the associative nature of the study. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") Action taken: The use of the abbreviation OHP (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized throughout the document, eliminating any terminological ambiguity. Lack of justification for the OHIP-14 categories Action taken: Relevant references were added, including Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), who have previously used and validated the categories employed in the analysis of the OHIP-14 scale. Validation of the HU-DBI questionnaire not properly cited Action taken: It has been clarified that the instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024), with these sources now properly cited. Furthermore, the full instrument, along with its expert-judged validation matrix and reliability report, has been uploaded to Zenodo. Availability of the full instruments Action taken: Complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) are now publicly available on Zenodo, including the validation matrices, internal reliability analysis, and the anonymized database. Database and statistical results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex with instruments and validation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Absence of confidence intervals and fit indicators (pseudo R²) Action taken: Confidence intervals (95% CI) and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been included in the results section and respective tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusions Action taken: The language used was carefully revised, replacing all causal expressions with associative or relational formulations, consistent with the correlational cross-sectional design of the study. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) Action taken: This reference has been removed, as it was not cited in the text and does not appear in the final list of references. We hope that the modifications made meet your expectations and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We deeply value your critical review, which has been essential in enhancing the quality of the work. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 16 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 16 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The term "impact" was replaced with "relationship" to more accurately reflect the correlational nature of the study, avoiding causal implications inconsistent with our cross-sectional design. Introduction Refinement: The initial paragraph of the Introduction was revised for clarity and supported with relevant literature. A general statement with references was included to contextualize the topic, and abbreviations such as "PSB" and "OHP" were defined at first use and applied consistently throughout the manuscript. Abbreviation Clarification: In line with your suggestion, all undefined abbreviations were revised, and full terms were provided to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. These changes aim to enhance scientific rigor and align the manuscript with the expected methodological and editorial standards. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The term "impact" was replaced with "relationship" to more accurately reflect the correlational nature of the study, avoiding causal implications inconsistent with our cross-sectional design. Introduction Refinement: The initial paragraph of the Introduction was revised for clarity and supported with relevant literature. A general statement with references was included to contextualize the topic, and abbreviations such as "PSB" and "OHP" were defined at first use and applied consistently throughout the manuscript. Abbreviation Clarification: In line with your suggestion, all undefined abbreviations were revised, and full terms were provided to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. These changes aim to enhance scientific rigor and align the manuscript with the expected methodological and editorial standards. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely ... Continue reading Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 2, Dr. Haslinda Ramli, for her insightful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each of her observations, along with the specific locations where the corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript. All modifications are clearly highlighted in the tracked version. 1. Title – Use of "impact" implies causality Comment: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript suggests a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. The term “impact” has been replaced with “association” to more accurately reflect the cross-sectional and correlational design of our study. The new title is: “Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff.” Changes made in: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections. 2. Introduction – First sentence implies causality and lacks citation Comment: The opening sentence of the Introduction should avoid implying causation and must be supported by references. Response: We have rewritten the sentence to avoid causal language and included a reference from the World Health Organization (2022) Global Oral Health Report . The revised sentence now reads: “Hospital staff’s perception of their oral health is associated with their overall oral health-related well-being (WHO, 2022).” Changes made in: Introduction, first paragraph. 3. Abbreviation inconsistency Comment: Please clarify the consistent use of abbreviations such as OHP, OHRQoL, and avoid unnecessary acronyms like PSB. Response: We reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all abbreviations. Only the essential acronyms remain: OHP (Oral Health Perception) and OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) . All others, including PSB, were removed or clarified at first mention. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially in Methods and Tables. 4. OHIP-14 classification – Categorical scores require source Comment: The use of qualitative classifications for OHIP-14 (e.g., excellent, poor) needs validation or removal. Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concern. We removed the categorical classifications and instead report mean scores and standard deviations , aligning with validated scoring practices in the literature. Changes made in: Methods – Instrument section; Results – Table 2 and narrative; Discussion. 5. HU-DBI instrument – Invalid reference Comment: The validation reference for the HU-DBI (Cruzado et al., 2024) is invalid or unavailable. Response: The incorrect reference has been removed. We clarified that the Spanish version of the HU-DBI was adapted and validated through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha . Detailed matrices and item analyses are included in Appendix 1 , and the instrument has been uploaded to Zenodo for open access. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments section; Supplementary Materials – Appendix 1; Zenodo link in footnote and References. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 . 6. Sample size and generalization Comment: Please explain the rationale for the sample size and the generalizability of findings. Response: A detailed explanation has been added. The sample size was calculated using G*Power (ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), requiring a minimum of 67 participants. We enrolled 72. Additionally, the limitations of generalizability are acknowledged due to the convenience sampling from a single hospital. Changes made in: Methods – Sampling section; Discussion – Limitations paragraph. 7. Confidence intervals in results Comment: Include 95% confidence intervals in correlation and regression results. Response: The Results section now reports 95% confidence intervals for Spearman’s correlations and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² estimates. This improves statistical transparency and interpretability. Changes made in: Results section – Table 3 and narrative. 8. Clarity of language Comment: Improve language clarity and avoid overgeneralization. Response: The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review using Grammarly Premium , ensuring clarity, precision, and academic tone. Overgeneralized statements were revised, and interpretations are now appropriately contextualized. The manuscript adheres to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. We truly appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. Her insights significantly improved the scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and linguistic clarity of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our work accordingly. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 2, Dr. Haslinda Ramli, for her insightful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each of her observations, along with the specific locations where the corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript. All modifications are clearly highlighted in the tracked version. 1. Title – Use of "impact" implies causality Comment: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript suggests a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. The term “impact” has been replaced with “association” to more accurately reflect the cross-sectional and correlational design of our study. The new title is: “Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff.” Changes made in: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections. 2. Introduction – First sentence implies causality and lacks citation Comment: The opening sentence of the Introduction should avoid implying causation and must be supported by references. Response: We have rewritten the sentence to avoid causal language and included a reference from the World Health Organization (2022) Global Oral Health Report . The revised sentence now reads: “Hospital staff’s perception of their oral health is associated with their overall oral health-related well-being (WHO, 2022).” Changes made in: Introduction, first paragraph. 3. Abbreviation inconsistency Comment: Please clarify the consistent use of abbreviations such as OHP, OHRQoL, and avoid unnecessary acronyms like PSB. Response: We reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all abbreviations. Only the essential acronyms remain: OHP (Oral Health Perception) and OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) . All others, including PSB, were removed or clarified at first mention. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially in Methods and Tables. 4. OHIP-14 classification – Categorical scores require source Comment: The use of qualitative classifications for OHIP-14 (e.g., excellent, poor) needs validation or removal. Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concern. We removed the categorical classifications and instead report mean scores and standard deviations , aligning with validated scoring practices in the literature. Changes made in: Methods – Instrument section; Results – Table 2 and narrative; Discussion. 5. HU-DBI instrument – Invalid reference Comment: The validation reference for the HU-DBI (Cruzado et al., 2024) is invalid or unavailable. Response: The incorrect reference has been removed. We clarified that the Spanish version of the HU-DBI was adapted and validated through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha . Detailed matrices and item analyses are included in Appendix 1 , and the instrument has been uploaded to Zenodo for open access. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments section; Supplementary Materials – Appendix 1; Zenodo link in footnote and References. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 . 6. Sample size and generalization Comment: Please explain the rationale for the sample size and the generalizability of findings. Response: A detailed explanation has been added. The sample size was calculated using G*Power (ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), requiring a minimum of 67 participants. We enrolled 72. Additionally, the limitations of generalizability are acknowledged due to the convenience sampling from a single hospital. Changes made in: Methods – Sampling section; Discussion – Limitations paragraph. 7. Confidence intervals in results Comment: Include 95% confidence intervals in correlation and regression results. Response: The Results section now reports 95% confidence intervals for Spearman’s correlations and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² estimates. This improves statistical transparency and interpretability. Changes made in: Results section – Table 3 and narrative. 8. Clarity of language Comment: Improve language clarity and avoid overgeneralization. Response: The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review using Grammarly Premium , ensuring clarity, precision, and academic tone. Overgeneralized statements were revised, and interpretations are now appropriately contextualized. The manuscript adheres to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. We truly appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. Her insights significantly improved the scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and linguistic clarity of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our work accordingly. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Asiri FYI. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r368811 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-368811 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 31 Mar 2025 Faris Yahya I Asiri , King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r368811 This manuscript explores the association between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff in northern Peru. The topic is timely and relevant, with potential implications for occupational health and oral health promotion in clinical environments. ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript explores the association between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff in northern Peru. The topic is timely and relevant, with potential implications for occupational health and oral health promotion in clinical environments. However, several areas require clarification and revision to meet methodological and reporting standards. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature The manuscript references global challenges in oral health but supports several key claims using regionally limited or non-peer-reviewed sources. These should be strengthened with authoritative global references such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030. Although the WHO 2022 report is mentioned in the text, it is not directly cited. This should be corrected. The manuscript references multiple SDGs beyond SDG 3 (e.g., SDG 6, 10, 11) without explaining their relevance. These references should be substantiated with literature or omitted. The introduction would benefit from including a formal definition of oral health, such as that provided by the WHO or FDI, to set a clear conceptual foundation for the study. 2. Methodological Issues The study is described as “correlational–causal,” and the results section repeatedly uses causal language (e.g., “impact,” “influence”). However, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. The language should be revised to reflect associative relationships. The manuscript lacks a sample size justification or power analysis. Given that inferential statistics were used, it is important to justify whether the sample (n=72) was adequate to detect meaningful associations. 3. Instruments and Transparency The classification of OHIP-14 results into categories such as “excellent,” “average,” and “poor” is not part of the original instrument. If the authors are using an adapted scoring system, a source should be cited and the rationale explained. Otherwise, the standard scoring system should be used. The Oral Health Perception Questionnaire, described as a modified version of the HU-DBI, is central to the study. However, the cited validation by Cruzado et al. (2024) is not found in the reference list. For transparency and reproducibility, the full text of both instruments (OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI) should be included as an appendix or uploaded to a repository with a permanent link. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation The statistical tests used (Spearman correlation and ordinal logistic regression) are appropriate given the data distribution. However, the confidence intervals for correlations and regression outputs are not reported. Including CIs would help readers assess the precision of estimates. Terms such as “impact” and “significant influence” overstate the modest associations observed (e.g., r = 0.391). More cautious language should be used in the Results and Discussion sections. 5. Discussion and Conclusion The discussion and conclusions sections overstate the implications of the findings. Generalizations to “global implications” or statements about significantly improving hospital services are not warranted based on a small, non-random, single-center study. The term “quality of life” is used throughout the manuscript without clarifying that the construct assessed was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). This should be clarified to avoid misinterpretation. 6. References Key references are missing, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022, and the Cruzado et al. (2024) validation paper. These should be added. Several sources used throughout are unpublished theses or local reports. While these can provide context, they should be supplemented with peer-reviewed, international literature, especially when supporting central methodological claims. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Oral Health Research, Dental Public Health, Oral Epidemiology, Special Care Dentistry, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Health Promotion I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Asiri FYI. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r368811 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-368811 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and made the necessary adjustments to enhance the quality and academic rigor of the article. Below, we present our detailed responses to your observations. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature: We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation with global references. We have included updated and high-impact citations, such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030 , to better support the arguments presented. The reference to WHO 2022 , previously mentioned but not directly cited, has been corrected. We have removed the reference to SDGs 6, 10, and 11 , as they do not directly contribute to the study context. Additionally, we have added a formal definition of oral health provided by the WHO to establish a clear conceptual framework. 2. Methodological Issues: We acknowledge the inappropriate use of causal terms such as "impact" and "influence" within the context of a correlational design. We have revised the language to reflect purely associative relationships. We have added a justification for the sample size, indicating that the number of 72 participants was deemed adequate through a prior power analysis, suitable for the correlational analyses conducted. 3. Instruments and Transparency: We appreciate the observation regarding the classification of OHIP-14 . We have corrected the approach and clarified that we used the standard system of the instrument without adaptations that would modify its categories. Regarding the reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) , we would like to clarify that during the drafting process, this reference was mistakenly included. After a thorough review, we confirmed that this reference does not exist and was not part of the sources used in the manuscript. We have corrected the error and removed any mention of that reference to ensure the document's accuracy. Additionally, we have included the complete instruments ( OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI ) in Annex 1 as a complementary file, as they were uploaded to the F1000Research platform along with the other study files, thereby ensuring transparency and availability for the academic community. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation: We have added the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlations and regressions presented to improve the precision of the results interpretation. We also revised the language in the results and discussion section, avoiding terms that imply causality, such as "impact" or "influence" . 5. Discussion and Conclusion: We adjusted the tone of the discussion to avoid generalizations that are not justified, considering the sample size and the specific context of the study. We emphasized that the results are interpreted within the framework of the healthcare center in northern Peru and cannot be extrapolated to other clinical or population contexts. Additionally, we clarified that the concept evaluated is specifically Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) , which is clearly specified throughout the manuscript to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. References: We have added the key references suggested, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All . Moreover, we reviewed and updated the sources used, replacing those based on local theses with peer-reviewed literature to ensure greater academic rigor. Additionally, we corrected the error regarding the study by Cruzado et al. (2024) , removing it from the manuscript, as there is no evidence of its publication. We once again appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the adjustments made have significantly strengthened the academic rigor of the study. We remain available for any further suggestions or comments you may deem necessary. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza and co-authors. Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and made the necessary adjustments to enhance the quality and academic rigor of the article. Below, we present our detailed responses to your observations. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature: We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation with global references. We have included updated and high-impact citations, such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030 , to better support the arguments presented. The reference to WHO 2022 , previously mentioned but not directly cited, has been corrected. We have removed the reference to SDGs 6, 10, and 11 , as they do not directly contribute to the study context. Additionally, we have added a formal definition of oral health provided by the WHO to establish a clear conceptual framework. 2. Methodological Issues: We acknowledge the inappropriate use of causal terms such as "impact" and "influence" within the context of a correlational design. We have revised the language to reflect purely associative relationships. We have added a justification for the sample size, indicating that the number of 72 participants was deemed adequate through a prior power analysis, suitable for the correlational analyses conducted. 3. Instruments and Transparency: We appreciate the observation regarding the classification of OHIP-14 . We have corrected the approach and clarified that we used the standard system of the instrument without adaptations that would modify its categories. Regarding the reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) , we would like to clarify that during the drafting process, this reference was mistakenly included. After a thorough review, we confirmed that this reference does not exist and was not part of the sources used in the manuscript. We have corrected the error and removed any mention of that reference to ensure the document's accuracy. Additionally, we have included the complete instruments ( OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI ) in Annex 1 as a complementary file, as they were uploaded to the F1000Research platform along with the other study files, thereby ensuring transparency and availability for the academic community. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation: We have added the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlations and regressions presented to improve the precision of the results interpretation. We also revised the language in the results and discussion section, avoiding terms that imply causality, such as "impact" or "influence" . 5. Discussion and Conclusion: We adjusted the tone of the discussion to avoid generalizations that are not justified, considering the sample size and the specific context of the study. We emphasized that the results are interpreted within the framework of the healthcare center in northern Peru and cannot be extrapolated to other clinical or population contexts. Additionally, we clarified that the concept evaluated is specifically Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) , which is clearly specified throughout the manuscript to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. References: We have added the key references suggested, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All . Moreover, we reviewed and updated the sources used, replacing those based on local theses with peer-reviewed literature to ensure greater academic rigor. Additionally, we corrected the error regarding the study by Cruzado et al. (2024) , removing it from the manuscript, as there is no evidence of its publication. We once again appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the adjustments made have significantly strengthened the academic rigor of the study. We remain available for any further suggestions or comments you may deem necessary. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza and co-authors. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international sources, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP documents to provide a stronger global perspective on oral health policy and inequality. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health has been incorporated in the Introduction to frame the central concept more precisely. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: The term was completely removed. The study now consistently uses "association" or "relationship" in line with its cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a justification using G*Power software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), which supports the adequacy of the sample size (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The full versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires (Spanish versions), along with the expert validation matrix and reliability metrics, have been uploaded to Zenodo . Links: Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion to better acknowledge methodological limitations and avoid overgeneralizing findings beyond the local context. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: The construct of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) has been explicitly defined and distinguished from general quality of life (QoL), reinforcing its role as the dependent variable. We are grateful for your valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the methodological clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international sources, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP documents to provide a stronger global perspective on oral health policy and inequality. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health has been incorporated in the Introduction to frame the central concept more precisely. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: The term was completely removed. The study now consistently uses "association" or "relationship" in line with its cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a justification using G*Power software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), which supports the adequacy of the sample size (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The full versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires (Spanish versions), along with the expert validation matrix and reliability metrics, have been uploaded to Zenodo . Links: Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion to better acknowledge methodological limitations and avoid overgeneralizing findings beyond the local context. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: The construct of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) has been explicitly defined and distinguished from general quality of life (QoL), reinforcing its role as the dependent variable. We are grateful for your valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the methodological clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 07 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 07 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific rigor and methodological precision of our study. Below, we detail our responses to each point raised: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international references, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP . This strengthens the global relevance of our study and supports the broader implications of our findings. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health was incorporated into the Introduction to reinforce the conceptual framework of the study. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: We completely removed the term "correlational-causal" from the manuscript. Instead, we consistently use "association" or "relationship" in accordance with our cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a sample size justification using GPower software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 80%), supporting the adequacy of the chosen sample (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) were uploaded to Zenodo, along with their validation matrices and reliability reports. Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological Annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid overgeneralizing results. We emphasized the local scope and acknowledged methodological limitations. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: We explicitly distinguished Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) from general Quality of Life (QoL), clarifying its role as the dependent variable in our analysis. Title Modification ➤ Action taken: In response to your and Reviewer 1’s suggestions, the original title “Impact of oral health perception on quality of life” was revised to: “Relationship between the perception of oral health and the quality of life of hospital staff” , in order to better reflect the non-causal, correlational nature of the study. We trust these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the improved quality and clarity of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your valuable insights and support. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific rigor and methodological precision of our study. Below, we detail our responses to each point raised: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international references, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP . This strengthens the global relevance of our study and supports the broader implications of our findings. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health was incorporated into the Introduction to reinforce the conceptual framework of the study. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: We completely removed the term "correlational-causal" from the manuscript. Instead, we consistently use "association" or "relationship" in accordance with our cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a sample size justification using GPower software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 80%), supporting the adequacy of the chosen sample (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) were uploaded to Zenodo, along with their validation matrices and reliability reports. Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological Annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid overgeneralizing results. We emphasized the local scope and acknowledged methodological limitations. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: We explicitly distinguished Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) from general Quality of Life (QoL), clarifying its role as the dependent variable in our analysis. Title Modification ➤ Action taken: In response to your and Reviewer 1’s suggestions, the original title “Impact of oral health perception on quality of life” was revised to: “Relationship between the perception of oral health and the quality of life of hospital staff” , in order to better reflect the non-causal, correlational nature of the study. We trust these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the improved quality and clarity of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your valuable insights and support. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank ... Continue reading Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 1, Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, for his constructive and thoughtful observations. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of his comments, along with the specific sections where changes were made in the revised manuscript. All edits are clearly marked in the tracked version. 1. Study objectives and rationale – Clarify the purpose and design Comment: The objective of the study and the rationale need to be more clearly presented in the introduction and methods. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. The objective was reformulated to explicitly state that the study aims to examine the association between oral health perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among hospital staff. We also clarified the study design as correlational and cross-sectional in both the Introduction and the Methods sections. Changes made in: Introduction (last paragraph), Methods – Design subsection. 2. Sampling method and population – Explain selection criteria Comment: Please provide more details about the population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Response: We added detailed information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria and specified that the sample was selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling from staff working at a level II hospital in northern Peru. The rationale for this selection was also explained. Changes made in: Methods – Population and Sampling section. 3. Instruments – Provide psychometric information Comment: More information is needed on the validity and reliability of the instruments used. Response: We provided complete psychometric information for both the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI instruments. The OHIP-14 has been widely validated in Spanish-speaking populations. For the HU-DBI, we clarified that its Spanish version was adapted through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All related evidence and matrices are now available in Appendix 1 and open-access via Zenodo. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments subsection; Supplementary Appendix 1; References (Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 ). 4. Statistical analysis – More clarity needed Comment: Clarify how the variables were analyzed and justify the tests used. Response: We improved the description of the statistical analysis. We explained the use of Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal data distribution, and logistic regression to explore the association between OHP and OHRQoL domains. Confidence intervals (95%) were added to support the strength and precision of the results. Changes made in: Methods – Data Analysis subsection; Results – Table 3 and text. 5. Interpretation of findings – Avoid causal language Comment: The interpretation of findings should not suggest causality in a cross-sectional design. Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid any causal implications, consistently using associative and correlational terminology. We acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional studies and emphasized the need for further longitudinal research. Changes made in: Discussion and Conclusion sections. 6. Ethical considerations – Add details on approvals Comment: Please confirm ethical approval and participant consent. Response: We added that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Universidad César Vallejo (Approval No. 007-2025-CEI), and that written informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Changes made in: Methods – Ethical Considerations subsection. We thank Reviewer 1 for his invaluable contributions. His remarks allowed us to strengthen the scientific robustness, ethical transparency, and methodological consistency of our study. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 1, Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, for his constructive and thoughtful observations. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of his comments, along with the specific sections where changes were made in the revised manuscript. All edits are clearly marked in the tracked version. 1. Study objectives and rationale – Clarify the purpose and design Comment: The objective of the study and the rationale need to be more clearly presented in the introduction and methods. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. The objective was reformulated to explicitly state that the study aims to examine the association between oral health perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among hospital staff. We also clarified the study design as correlational and cross-sectional in both the Introduction and the Methods sections. Changes made in: Introduction (last paragraph), Methods – Design subsection. 2. Sampling method and population – Explain selection criteria Comment: Please provide more details about the population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Response: We added detailed information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria and specified that the sample was selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling from staff working at a level II hospital in northern Peru. The rationale for this selection was also explained. Changes made in: Methods – Population and Sampling section. 3. Instruments – Provide psychometric information Comment: More information is needed on the validity and reliability of the instruments used. Response: We provided complete psychometric information for both the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI instruments. The OHIP-14 has been widely validated in Spanish-speaking populations. For the HU-DBI, we clarified that its Spanish version was adapted through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All related evidence and matrices are now available in Appendix 1 and open-access via Zenodo. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments subsection; Supplementary Appendix 1; References (Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 ). 4. Statistical analysis – More clarity needed Comment: Clarify how the variables were analyzed and justify the tests used. Response: We improved the description of the statistical analysis. We explained the use of Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal data distribution, and logistic regression to explore the association between OHP and OHRQoL domains. Confidence intervals (95%) were added to support the strength and precision of the results. Changes made in: Methods – Data Analysis subsection; Results – Table 3 and text. 5. Interpretation of findings – Avoid causal language Comment: The interpretation of findings should not suggest causality in a cross-sectional design. Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid any causal implications, consistently using associative and correlational terminology. We acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional studies and emphasized the need for further longitudinal research. Changes made in: Discussion and Conclusion sections. 6. Ethical considerations – Add details on approvals Comment: Please confirm ethical approval and participant consent. Response: We added that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Universidad César Vallejo (Approval No. 007-2025-CEI), and that written informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Changes made in: Methods – Ethical Considerations subsection. We thank Reviewer 1 for his invaluable contributions. His remarks allowed us to strengthen the scientific robustness, ethical transparency, and methodological consistency of our study. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and made the necessary adjustments to enhance the quality and academic rigor of the article. Below, we present our detailed responses to your observations. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature: We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation with global references. We have included updated and high-impact citations, such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030 , to better support the arguments presented. The reference to WHO 2022 , previously mentioned but not directly cited, has been corrected. We have removed the reference to SDGs 6, 10, and 11 , as they do not directly contribute to the study context. Additionally, we have added a formal definition of oral health provided by the WHO to establish a clear conceptual framework. 2. Methodological Issues: We acknowledge the inappropriate use of causal terms such as "impact" and "influence" within the context of a correlational design. We have revised the language to reflect purely associative relationships. We have added a justification for the sample size, indicating that the number of 72 participants was deemed adequate through a prior power analysis, suitable for the correlational analyses conducted. 3. Instruments and Transparency: We appreciate the observation regarding the classification of OHIP-14 . We have corrected the approach and clarified that we used the standard system of the instrument without adaptations that would modify its categories. Regarding the reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) , we would like to clarify that during the drafting process, this reference was mistakenly included. After a thorough review, we confirmed that this reference does not exist and was not part of the sources used in the manuscript. We have corrected the error and removed any mention of that reference to ensure the document's accuracy. Additionally, we have included the complete instruments ( OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI ) in Annex 1 as a complementary file, as they were uploaded to the F1000Research platform along with the other study files, thereby ensuring transparency and availability for the academic community. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation: We have added the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlations and regressions presented to improve the precision of the results interpretation. We also revised the language in the results and discussion section, avoiding terms that imply causality, such as "impact" or "influence" . 5. Discussion and Conclusion: We adjusted the tone of the discussion to avoid generalizations that are not justified, considering the sample size and the specific context of the study. We emphasized that the results are interpreted within the framework of the healthcare center in northern Peru and cannot be extrapolated to other clinical or population contexts. Additionally, we clarified that the concept evaluated is specifically Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) , which is clearly specified throughout the manuscript to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. References: We have added the key references suggested, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All . Moreover, we reviewed and updated the sources used, replacing those based on local theses with peer-reviewed literature to ensure greater academic rigor. Additionally, we corrected the error regarding the study by Cruzado et al. (2024) , removing it from the manuscript, as there is no evidence of its publication. We once again appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the adjustments made have significantly strengthened the academic rigor of the study. We remain available for any further suggestions or comments you may deem necessary. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza and co-authors. Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and made the necessary adjustments to enhance the quality and academic rigor of the article. Below, we present our detailed responses to your observations. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature: We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation with global references. We have included updated and high-impact citations, such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030 , to better support the arguments presented. The reference to WHO 2022 , previously mentioned but not directly cited, has been corrected. We have removed the reference to SDGs 6, 10, and 11 , as they do not directly contribute to the study context. Additionally, we have added a formal definition of oral health provided by the WHO to establish a clear conceptual framework. 2. Methodological Issues: We acknowledge the inappropriate use of causal terms such as "impact" and "influence" within the context of a correlational design. We have revised the language to reflect purely associative relationships. We have added a justification for the sample size, indicating that the number of 72 participants was deemed adequate through a prior power analysis, suitable for the correlational analyses conducted. 3. Instruments and Transparency: We appreciate the observation regarding the classification of OHIP-14 . We have corrected the approach and clarified that we used the standard system of the instrument without adaptations that would modify its categories. Regarding the reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) , we would like to clarify that during the drafting process, this reference was mistakenly included. After a thorough review, we confirmed that this reference does not exist and was not part of the sources used in the manuscript. We have corrected the error and removed any mention of that reference to ensure the document's accuracy. Additionally, we have included the complete instruments ( OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI ) in Annex 1 as a complementary file, as they were uploaded to the F1000Research platform along with the other study files, thereby ensuring transparency and availability for the academic community. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation: We have added the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlations and regressions presented to improve the precision of the results interpretation. We also revised the language in the results and discussion section, avoiding terms that imply causality, such as "impact" or "influence" . 5. Discussion and Conclusion: We adjusted the tone of the discussion to avoid generalizations that are not justified, considering the sample size and the specific context of the study. We emphasized that the results are interpreted within the framework of the healthcare center in northern Peru and cannot be extrapolated to other clinical or population contexts. Additionally, we clarified that the concept evaluated is specifically Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) , which is clearly specified throughout the manuscript to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. References: We have added the key references suggested, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All . Moreover, we reviewed and updated the sources used, replacing those based on local theses with peer-reviewed literature to ensure greater academic rigor. Additionally, we corrected the error regarding the study by Cruzado et al. (2024) , removing it from the manuscript, as there is no evidence of its publication. We once again appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the adjustments made have significantly strengthened the academic rigor of the study. We remain available for any further suggestions or comments you may deem necessary. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza and co-authors. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international sources, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP documents to provide a stronger global perspective on oral health policy and inequality. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health has been incorporated in the Introduction to frame the central concept more precisely. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: The term was completely removed. The study now consistently uses "association" or "relationship" in line with its cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a justification using G*Power software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), which supports the adequacy of the sample size (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The full versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires (Spanish versions), along with the expert validation matrix and reliability metrics, have been uploaded to Zenodo . Links: Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion to better acknowledge methodological limitations and avoid overgeneralizing findings beyond the local context. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: The construct of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) has been explicitly defined and distinguished from general quality of life (QoL), reinforcing its role as the dependent variable. We are grateful for your valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the methodological clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international sources, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP documents to provide a stronger global perspective on oral health policy and inequality. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health has been incorporated in the Introduction to frame the central concept more precisely. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: The term was completely removed. The study now consistently uses "association" or "relationship" in line with its cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a justification using G*Power software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), which supports the adequacy of the sample size (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The full versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires (Spanish versions), along with the expert validation matrix and reliability metrics, have been uploaded to Zenodo . Links: Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion to better acknowledge methodological limitations and avoid overgeneralizing findings beyond the local context. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: The construct of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) has been explicitly defined and distinguished from general quality of life (QoL), reinforcing its role as the dependent variable. We are grateful for your valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the methodological clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 07 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 07 May 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific rigor and methodological precision of our study. Below, we detail our responses to each point raised: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international references, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP . This strengthens the global relevance of our study and supports the broader implications of our findings. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health was incorporated into the Introduction to reinforce the conceptual framework of the study. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: We completely removed the term "correlational-causal" from the manuscript. Instead, we consistently use "association" or "relationship" in accordance with our cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a sample size justification using GPower software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 80%), supporting the adequacy of the chosen sample (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) were uploaded to Zenodo, along with their validation matrices and reliability reports. Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological Annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid overgeneralizing results. We emphasized the local scope and acknowledged methodological limitations. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: We explicitly distinguished Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) from general Quality of Life (QoL), clarifying its role as the dependent variable in our analysis. Title Modification ➤ Action taken: In response to your and Reviewer 1’s suggestions, the original title “Impact of oral health perception on quality of life” was revised to: “Relationship between the perception of oral health and the quality of life of hospital staff” , in order to better reflect the non-causal, correlational nature of the study. We trust these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the improved quality and clarity of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your valuable insights and support. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific rigor and methodological precision of our study. Below, we detail our responses to each point raised: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international references, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP . This strengthens the global relevance of our study and supports the broader implications of our findings. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health was incorporated into the Introduction to reinforce the conceptual framework of the study. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: We completely removed the term "correlational-causal" from the manuscript. Instead, we consistently use "association" or "relationship" in accordance with our cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a sample size justification using GPower software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 80%), supporting the adequacy of the chosen sample (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) were uploaded to Zenodo, along with their validation matrices and reliability reports. Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological Annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid overgeneralizing results. We emphasized the local scope and acknowledged methodological limitations. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: We explicitly distinguished Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) from general Quality of Life (QoL), clarifying its role as the dependent variable in our analysis. Title Modification ➤ Action taken: In response to your and Reviewer 1’s suggestions, the original title “Impact of oral health perception on quality of life” was revised to: “Relationship between the perception of oral health and the quality of life of hospital staff” , in order to better reflect the non-causal, correlational nature of the study. We trust these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the improved quality and clarity of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your valuable insights and support. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 15 Jul 2025 Author Response Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank ... Continue reading Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 1, Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, for his constructive and thoughtful observations. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of his comments, along with the specific sections where changes were made in the revised manuscript. All edits are clearly marked in the tracked version. 1. Study objectives and rationale – Clarify the purpose and design Comment: The objective of the study and the rationale need to be more clearly presented in the introduction and methods. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. The objective was reformulated to explicitly state that the study aims to examine the association between oral health perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among hospital staff. We also clarified the study design as correlational and cross-sectional in both the Introduction and the Methods sections. Changes made in: Introduction (last paragraph), Methods – Design subsection. 2. Sampling method and population – Explain selection criteria Comment: Please provide more details about the population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Response: We added detailed information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria and specified that the sample was selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling from staff working at a level II hospital in northern Peru. The rationale for this selection was also explained. Changes made in: Methods – Population and Sampling section. 3. Instruments – Provide psychometric information Comment: More information is needed on the validity and reliability of the instruments used. Response: We provided complete psychometric information for both the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI instruments. The OHIP-14 has been widely validated in Spanish-speaking populations. For the HU-DBI, we clarified that its Spanish version was adapted through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All related evidence and matrices are now available in Appendix 1 and open-access via Zenodo. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments subsection; Supplementary Appendix 1; References (Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 ). 4. Statistical analysis – More clarity needed Comment: Clarify how the variables were analyzed and justify the tests used. Response: We improved the description of the statistical analysis. We explained the use of Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal data distribution, and logistic regression to explore the association between OHP and OHRQoL domains. Confidence intervals (95%) were added to support the strength and precision of the results. Changes made in: Methods – Data Analysis subsection; Results – Table 3 and text. 5. Interpretation of findings – Avoid causal language Comment: The interpretation of findings should not suggest causality in a cross-sectional design. Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid any causal implications, consistently using associative and correlational terminology. We acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional studies and emphasized the need for further longitudinal research. Changes made in: Discussion and Conclusion sections. 6. Ethical considerations – Add details on approvals Comment: Please confirm ethical approval and participant consent. Response: We added that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Universidad César Vallejo (Approval No. 007-2025-CEI), and that written informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Changes made in: Methods – Ethical Considerations subsection. We thank Reviewer 1 for his invaluable contributions. His remarks allowed us to strengthen the scientific robustness, ethical transparency, and methodological consistency of our study. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 1, Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, for his constructive and thoughtful observations. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of his comments, along with the specific sections where changes were made in the revised manuscript. All edits are clearly marked in the tracked version. 1. Study objectives and rationale – Clarify the purpose and design Comment: The objective of the study and the rationale need to be more clearly presented in the introduction and methods. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. The objective was reformulated to explicitly state that the study aims to examine the association between oral health perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among hospital staff. We also clarified the study design as correlational and cross-sectional in both the Introduction and the Methods sections. Changes made in: Introduction (last paragraph), Methods – Design subsection. 2. Sampling method and population – Explain selection criteria Comment: Please provide more details about the population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Response: We added detailed information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria and specified that the sample was selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling from staff working at a level II hospital in northern Peru. The rationale for this selection was also explained. Changes made in: Methods – Population and Sampling section. 3. Instruments – Provide psychometric information Comment: More information is needed on the validity and reliability of the instruments used. Response: We provided complete psychometric information for both the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI instruments. The OHIP-14 has been widely validated in Spanish-speaking populations. For the HU-DBI, we clarified that its Spanish version was adapted through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All related evidence and matrices are now available in Appendix 1 and open-access via Zenodo. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments subsection; Supplementary Appendix 1; References (Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 ). 4. Statistical analysis – More clarity needed Comment: Clarify how the variables were analyzed and justify the tests used. Response: We improved the description of the statistical analysis. We explained the use of Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal data distribution, and logistic regression to explore the association between OHP and OHRQoL domains. Confidence intervals (95%) were added to support the strength and precision of the results. Changes made in: Methods – Data Analysis subsection; Results – Table 3 and text. 5. Interpretation of findings – Avoid causal language Comment: The interpretation of findings should not suggest causality in a cross-sectional design. Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid any causal implications, consistently using associative and correlational terminology. We acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional studies and emphasized the need for further longitudinal research. Changes made in: Discussion and Conclusion sections. 6. Ethical considerations – Add details on approvals Comment: Please confirm ethical approval and participant consent. Response: We added that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Universidad César Vallejo (Approval No. 007-2025-CEI), and that written informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Changes made in: Methods – Ethical Considerations subsection. We thank Reviewer 1 for his invaluable contributions. His remarks allowed us to strengthen the scientific robustness, ethical transparency, and methodological consistency of our study. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: John MT. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371448 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371448 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Mar 2025 Mike T John , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371448 The manuscript “Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff” aimed to “analyze the relationship between the QoL and the PSB of the staff of a level II-1 hospital, located in the north of Peru, ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript “Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff” aimed to “analyze the relationship between the QoL and the PSB of the staff of a level II-1 hospital, located in the north of Peru, taking into account its dimensions and interactions. The research aims to provide evidence to design strategies that promote the well-being of health personnel and optimize the quality of care provided to patients.” The topic is interesting and relevant, but the methodology is flawed. The researchers are interested to “provide evidence to design strategies that promote the well-being of health personnel and optimize the quality of care provided to patients.” However, the authors performed a cross-sectional study, and this study design is not able to derive “evidence” for “promotion strategies.” Such evidence can only be derived from longitudinal studies. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? – No The authors are not aware that OHRQoL measured by OHIP does not have 7 dimensions. OHRQoL has four dimensions (John MT, 2020 [Ref-1]). The authors are not aware of the recent scoring recommendations for OHIP (John MT., 2022 [Ref-2]). Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? – No The authors performed a cross-sectional study when a longitudinal study would have been necessary to answer the research question. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? – No The central study outcome is oral health-related quality of life measured by OHIP-14. The authors provided the following information: “Regarding the instruments, the Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire was used, originally designed by Slade and Spencer in 1994, adapted by Espinoza in 2017, and updated and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. Loza. This questionnaire includes 14 items organized into 7 dimensions (Functional limitation, Physical pain, Psychological discomfort, Physical disabilities, Psychological disabilities, Social disability, and Disability), with 2 items per dimension. A 5-point Likert scale was applied (0 = never, 4 = very frequently), the results of which were classified into three categories: excellent (0-2 points), average (3-9 points), and poor quality of life (10 points or more).” The authors provided in the reference list a reference to Slade and Spencer and to Espinoza; however, a reference to “updated and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. Loza” is missing. Therefore, it is not clear what was measured, especially, because the authors use an item response scale ranging from “never” to “very frequently,” which is not OHIP’s original response format. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? – No For many results, e.g., “significant association between quality of life and oral health perception (Rho=0.391, p<0.05)”, the authors only provided point estimates. Confidence intervals around point estimates describe the uncertainty around the results. In this study with N=72, this uncertainty is substantial. Calculating a confidence interval according to https://www.statskingdom.com/correlation-confidence-interval-calculator.html reveals that correlations as small as 0.18 and as large as 0.57 are compatible with the study. While the observed correlation of 0.391 is statistically significant, i.e., it can be differentiated from 0, the observed “medium” size correlation could be “small” or “large” when the study would be repeated, indicating that not much can be learned from the study. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? – No The authors concluded “The link between quality of life and the perception of oral health in hospital staff emphasizes the need to implement comprehensive strategies that optimize their well-being and work performance, contributing significantly to improving hospital services.” First, the authors make a statement about quality of life. However, quality of life (a construct that entails environment, safety, freedom etc.) was not measured. ORAL HEALTH-RELATED quality of life was measured. Second, the magnitude of the link between oral health-related quality of life and perception of oral health is not clear. It could be small, i.e., not clinically relevant. Third, “the need to implement comprehensive strategies” is not supported by the cross-sectional study design. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. John MT: Foundations of oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Rehabil . 2020. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. John MT: STANDARDIZATION OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT USING OHIP-5 - VALIDATION OF "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE AND SCORING OF ORAL HEALTH IMPACT PROFILE VERSIONS". J Evid Based Dent Pract . 2022; 22 (1S): 101645 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: oral health-related quality of life I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT John MT. Reviewer Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371448 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371448 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 02 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been instrumental in guiding substantial improvements to our study entitled: “Relationship between oral health perception and quality of life in hospital staff.” I humbly apologize for not responding sooner to your detailed review. At the time, I was not yet familiar with the F1000Research platform and unfortunately overlooked your comments. Now that I have a better understanding of the system, I wish to respectfully inform you that all your major observations have now been addressed in the revised version, including: Title and Causal Language : The word “impact” was replaced with “relationship” , and causal or prescriptive expressions were carefully revised to remain within the scope of a correlational, cross-sectional design. Clarification of OHIP-14 Scoring : We corrected the dimensional interpretation and cited John (2020, 2022) for standard scoring guidance. The questionnaire was reformulated to respect international standards and now includes proper acknowledgment of the four-dimensional structure of OHRQoL. Psychometric Validity : We uploaded the full instruments (OHIP-14 and HU-DBI) including psychometric data to Zenodo , ensuring full transparency and replicability. Statistical Reporting : We added confidence intervals for correlation coefficients and justified the sample size using G*Power , as well as reporting Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² to better interpret the logistic regression outcomes. Terminology : We replaced the term “quality of life” with “oral health-related quality of life” throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual accuracy. Conclusions Revised : We rephrased our conclusions to reflect the statistical scope and limitations of a cross-sectional study, without suggesting implementation of strategies not directly derived from the design. These modifications were made not only out of respect for your review, but also in appreciation for your high standards in the field of oral health-related quality of life research. We believe that the manuscript now meets the criteria for methodological and scientific integrity and would be deeply honored if you could consider revisiting the updated version. Please feel free to share any further suggestions—we remain open and grateful to continue improving. With highest respect and appreciation, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been instrumental in guiding substantial improvements to our study entitled: “Relationship between oral health perception and quality of life in hospital staff.” I humbly apologize for not responding sooner to your detailed review. At the time, I was not yet familiar with the F1000Research platform and unfortunately overlooked your comments. Now that I have a better understanding of the system, I wish to respectfully inform you that all your major observations have now been addressed in the revised version, including: Title and Causal Language : The word “impact” was replaced with “relationship” , and causal or prescriptive expressions were carefully revised to remain within the scope of a correlational, cross-sectional design. Clarification of OHIP-14 Scoring : We corrected the dimensional interpretation and cited John (2020, 2022) for standard scoring guidance. The questionnaire was reformulated to respect international standards and now includes proper acknowledgment of the four-dimensional structure of OHRQoL. Psychometric Validity : We uploaded the full instruments (OHIP-14 and HU-DBI) including psychometric data to Zenodo , ensuring full transparency and replicability. Statistical Reporting : We added confidence intervals for correlation coefficients and justified the sample size using G*Power , as well as reporting Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² to better interpret the logistic regression outcomes. Terminology : We replaced the term “quality of life” with “oral health-related quality of life” throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual accuracy. Conclusions Revised : We rephrased our conclusions to reflect the statistical scope and limitations of a cross-sectional study, without suggesting implementation of strategies not directly derived from the design. These modifications were made not only out of respect for your review, but also in appreciation for your high standards in the field of oral health-related quality of life research. We believe that the manuscript now meets the criteria for methodological and scientific integrity and would be deeply honored if you could consider revisiting the updated version. Please feel free to share any further suggestions—we remain open and grateful to continue improving. With highest respect and appreciation, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Author Response 25 Nov 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 25 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% ... Continue reading Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% CIs added to correlations, and instruments/data shared openly. We appreciate your foundational input and would be grateful for any further advice. All changes are visible in V5 (tracked). Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% CIs added to correlations, and instruments/data shared openly. We appreciate your foundational input and would be grateful for any further advice. All changes are visible in V5 (tracked). Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 02 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 02 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and ... Continue reading Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been instrumental in guiding substantial improvements to our study entitled: “Relationship between oral health perception and quality of life in hospital staff.” I humbly apologize for not responding sooner to your detailed review. At the time, I was not yet familiar with the F1000Research platform and unfortunately overlooked your comments. Now that I have a better understanding of the system, I wish to respectfully inform you that all your major observations have now been addressed in the revised version, including: Title and Causal Language : The word “impact” was replaced with “relationship” , and causal or prescriptive expressions were carefully revised to remain within the scope of a correlational, cross-sectional design. Clarification of OHIP-14 Scoring : We corrected the dimensional interpretation and cited John (2020, 2022) for standard scoring guidance. The questionnaire was reformulated to respect international standards and now includes proper acknowledgment of the four-dimensional structure of OHRQoL. Psychometric Validity : We uploaded the full instruments (OHIP-14 and HU-DBI) including psychometric data to Zenodo , ensuring full transparency and replicability. Statistical Reporting : We added confidence intervals for correlation coefficients and justified the sample size using G*Power , as well as reporting Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² to better interpret the logistic regression outcomes. Terminology : We replaced the term “quality of life” with “oral health-related quality of life” throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual accuracy. Conclusions Revised : We rephrased our conclusions to reflect the statistical scope and limitations of a cross-sectional study, without suggesting implementation of strategies not directly derived from the design. These modifications were made not only out of respect for your review, but also in appreciation for your high standards in the field of oral health-related quality of life research. We believe that the manuscript now meets the criteria for methodological and scientific integrity and would be deeply honored if you could consider revisiting the updated version. Please feel free to share any further suggestions—we remain open and grateful to continue improving. With highest respect and appreciation, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been instrumental in guiding substantial improvements to our study entitled: “Relationship between oral health perception and quality of life in hospital staff.” I humbly apologize for not responding sooner to your detailed review. At the time, I was not yet familiar with the F1000Research platform and unfortunately overlooked your comments. Now that I have a better understanding of the system, I wish to respectfully inform you that all your major observations have now been addressed in the revised version, including: Title and Causal Language : The word “impact” was replaced with “relationship” , and causal or prescriptive expressions were carefully revised to remain within the scope of a correlational, cross-sectional design. Clarification of OHIP-14 Scoring : We corrected the dimensional interpretation and cited John (2020, 2022) for standard scoring guidance. The questionnaire was reformulated to respect international standards and now includes proper acknowledgment of the four-dimensional structure of OHRQoL. Psychometric Validity : We uploaded the full instruments (OHIP-14 and HU-DBI) including psychometric data to Zenodo , ensuring full transparency and replicability. Statistical Reporting : We added confidence intervals for correlation coefficients and justified the sample size using G*Power , as well as reporting Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² to better interpret the logistic regression outcomes. Terminology : We replaced the term “quality of life” with “oral health-related quality of life” throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual accuracy. Conclusions Revised : We rephrased our conclusions to reflect the statistical scope and limitations of a cross-sectional study, without suggesting implementation of strategies not directly derived from the design. These modifications were made not only out of respect for your review, but also in appreciation for your high standards in the field of oral health-related quality of life research. We believe that the manuscript now meets the criteria for methodological and scientific integrity and would be deeply honored if you could consider revisiting the updated version. Please feel free to share any further suggestions—we remain open and grateful to continue improving. With highest respect and appreciation, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author Competing Interests: None declared. Close Report a concern Author Response 25 Nov 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza , Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru 25 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% ... Continue reading Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% CIs added to correlations, and instruments/data shared openly. We appreciate your foundational input and would be grateful for any further advice. All changes are visible in V5 (tracked). Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% CIs added to correlations, and instruments/data shared openly. We appreciate your foundational input and would be grateful for any further advice. All changes are visible in V5 (tracked). Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 6 VERSION 6 PUBLISHED 26 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 6 Version 6 (revision) 28 Jan 26 read Version 5 (revision) 10 Dec 25 read read read Version 4 (revision) 13 Oct 25 read read read Version 3 (revision) 16 Jun 25 read Version 2 (revision) 02 May 25 read Version 1 26 Feb 25 read read read Mike T John , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA Faris Yahya I Asiri , King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia Haslinda Ramli , University Sains Islam Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fadil Abdillah Arifin , Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia Nur Surya Wirawan , Universitas Hasanuddin Fakultas Kedokteran (Ringgold ID: 355661), Makassar, Indonesia Pankaj Dhawan , Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, India Rasha Salah , University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Arifin F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Mar 2026 | for Version 6 Fadil Abdillah Arifin , Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Arifin F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have checked the PPT file of the flowchart that was made according to the previous instructions. The flowchart is quite good and well-structured. Thank you. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise OHRQoL, Medical and dental education, Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Arifin FA. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195409.r453581) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v6#referee-response-453581 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Arifin F et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Dec 2025 | for Version 5 Fadil Abdillah Arifin , Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia Nur Surya Wirawan , Department Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Universitas Hasanuddin Fakultas Kedokteran (Ringgold ID: 355661), Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Arifin F et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. OK 2. OK 3. I have not yet viewed the flowchart as I previously recommended. A flowchart is essential for readers to understand the research process and facilitate the replication of analogous research methodologies. The author has already provided clarification; however, the flowchart I am referencing is a research flowchart in image format. 4. OK 5. OK 6. OK Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise OHRQoL, Medical and dental education, Endodontics We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 28 Jan 2026 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru The requested research methodology flowchart has now been provided in image format and uploaded as a separate figure file ( Figure 2: Research methodology flowchart / methodological framework ). In addition, the Methods section explicitly cites Figure 2 to guide readers through the study workflow (study design and setting, population and sampling, instruments, procedure, and statistical analyses). The authors believe this addition improves transparency and facilitates replication of analogous research methodologies. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Arifin FA and Wirawan NS. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191197.r440649) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v5#referee-response-440649 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Dhawan P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Dec 2025 | for Version 5 Pankaj Dhawan , SCHOOL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, India 0 Views copyright © 2026 Dhawan P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study is a competently executed cross-sectional analysis that makes a valuable contribution to the regional literature on occupational oral health. The authors successfully document a significant association between a staff member's subjective assessment of their oral health (Perceived Oral Health, POH) and their overall oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQOL). This study provides compelling evidence of the link between self-perceived oral health and well-being among hospital staff, strongly supporting the need for targeted, context-specific workplace oral health promotion strategies. While the methodological limitations prevent broad generalization and causal claims, the authors have shown an excellent ability to respond to scientific peer review, leading to a much stronger and more transparent Version 5. The core finding regarding the knowledge gap is a clear mandate for immediate public health action in this setting. https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v4#referee-response-428725 Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Education, Dentistry, Research, Oral health. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 02 Jan 2026 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru Thank you for reviewing Version 5 and for approving the manuscript. We appreciate your confirmation that our revisions addressed the previous comments. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Dhawan P. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191197.r440648) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v5#referee-response-440648 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Salah R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Dec 2025 | for Version 5 Rasha Salah , University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq 0 Views copyright © 2026 Salah R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions the authors have addressed my previous comments and revised the manuscript. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise periodontics, implantology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 02 Jan 2026 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru Thank you for reviewing Version 5 and for confirming that the manuscript revisions adequately addressed all prior comments. We appreciate your approval. View more View less Competing Interests . reply Respond Report a concern Salah R. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191197.r440644) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v5#referee-response-440644 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Salah R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Nov 2025 | for Version 4 Rasha Salah , University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq 0 Views copyright © 2025 Salah R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions there are missing detais in the methodology: • Who administered the questionnaires? • Were they self-administered or interviewer-administered? • What was the response rate (72 out of 80 = 90%)? • Were there systematic differences between participants and non-participants? • What time period for data collection? • Any quality control measures during data collection? statistcs Despite technically correct methods, the interpretation of results is questionable: Overstating the Strength of Association A correlation of 0.391 may be statistically significant but is of questionable clinical importance. The authors never addressed: • What magnitude of correlation would be clinically meaningful? • Does a ρ = 0.391 justify implementing oral health interventions? • What is the minimal clinically important difference for OHRQoL? • Who administered the questionnaires? • Were they self-administered or interviewer-administered? • What was the response rate (72 out of 80 = 90%)? • Were there systematic differences between participants and non-participants? • What time period for data collection? • Any quality control measures during data collection? The authors acknowledge limitations but don’t provide: • Comparison of their sample characteristics to the broader hospital staff population • Discussion of how their hospital compares to other Level II-1 hospitals in Peru • Any external validation or comparison with other studies in similar settings The authors don’t adequately compare their findings to existing research: • Is ρ = 0.391 consistent with other studies? • Is this stronger or weaker than expected? • What correlations have other researchers found between POH and OHRQoL? Without this context, readers cannot judge whether the finding is novel, confirmatory, or surprisingly weak. The conclusions significantly overreach beyond what the data support. The authors: 1. Imply causality from correlational data 2. Recommend interventions without testing them 3. Generalize from a single-site convenience sample 4. Don’t adequately acknowledge the 80% unexplained variance 5. Don’t establish clinical significance of the modest correlation Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise periodontics, implantology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 02 Jan 2026 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru Dear Dr. Salah, Thank you for your careful review and for highlighting specific areas where greater methodological transparency and interpretative balance were needed. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively to address each of your concerns. (1) Missing methodological details We expanded the Methods section to clearly specify: Administration : the questionnaires were distributed and collected by trained members of the research team, while responses were completed by participants. Mode : both instruments were self-administered . Response rate : we explicitly report 72/80 (90%) . Data collection period : we now state that data were collected between September and October 2024 . Quality control : we added the quality assurance steps implemented during fieldwork and prior to analysis (on-site completeness checks and verification of data entry). Participants vs non-participants : we clarified that demographic data from non-participants were not collected , therefore systematic comparisons could not be performed; this is now explicitly acknowledged as a limitation. (2) Strength of association and clinical relevance (ρ = 0.391) (ρ = 0.391; 95% CI 0.18–0.57) We agree that statistical significance does not equate to clinical importance. We revised the Discussion and Conclusions to frame the correlation ( ρ = 0.391 ) as modest in magnitude and to avoid overstatement. We now explicitly state that these findings are associative and do not justify intervention recommendations on their own. Regarding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) , we clarified that MCID is typically defined for longitudinal or interventional change scores, and it is not directly applicable to a cross-sectional correlational estimate. (3) Contextualization with existing research We strengthened the Discussion by adding clearer comparisons with relevant studies assessing perceived oral health and OHRQoL, so that readers can judge whether the observed association is consistent with prior evidence and whether it is confirmatory or context-specific. (4) External validity and setting comparability In the Limitations section, we expanded our discussion of generalizability, emphasizing the single-site design, convenience sampling, and the lack of benchmarking against broader staff populations and other Level II-1 hospitals. We also outlined how future multicenter studies with probabilistic sampling and clinical examinations would address these gaps. (5) Conclusions and scope of inference We revised the conclusion to remove any causal language, avoid generalization beyond the study context, acknowledge the substantial unexplained variability, and present the findings as hypothesis-generating evidence that supports the need for longitudinal and clinically triangulated research. We sincerely appreciate your recommendations, which have improved the manuscript’s transparency and interpretative rigor. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all authors View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Salah R. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188626.r428728) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v4#referee-response-428728 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dhawan P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Nov 2025 | for Version 4 Pankaj Dhawan , SCHOOL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dhawan P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. Inability to Determine Causation is the single biggest gap. The cross-sectional design can only show that a relationship exists, not why . 2. The study's findings cannot be generalized to a wider population. This is due to two key design choices: "Non-probabilistic intentional convenience sampling" is a weak sampling method. It is not random and is prone to selection bias. The sample is small (n=72) and from a single institution . The staff at this one hospital may not be representative of all hospital staff in Peru, let alone globally. 3. The study relies 100% on self-reported questionnaires (POH and OHRQoL). There is no objective clinical data . The study cannot determine if the participants' perception of "poor" oral health matches their actual clinical status (e.g., a dental exam to count carious lesions, check for periodontal disease, etc.) 4. To address the gap in causation, a longitudinal study is needed. This would involve measuring POH at the start of the study (Time 1) and then measuring OHRQoL at a later date (Time 2). This could help establish a temporal (and potentially causal) link. 5. Objective clinical examinations by a calibrated dentist to measure actual disease status (e.g., DMFT index, periodontal charting). This would allow researchers to answer a much more interesting question: How well does perceived oral health align with actual clinical oral health? 6. To enhance generalizability, a future study must use a multi-center, randomized sampling strategy, recruiting a much larger number of participants from multiple hospitals (both public and private) across different regions. Mention and discuss in the Limitations and Future Research Section. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Education, Dentistry, Research, Oral health. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Dec 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru Dear Dr. Dhawan, thank you for underscoring design and generalizability. Version 5 now makes explicit in Limitations and Future Research : (i) the cross-sectional design cannot establish causation; (ii) single-center, convenience sampling and the small n limit external validity; (iii) reliance on self-report without objective clinical exams. We also outline next steps: (iv) multicenter probabilistic sampling; (v) longitudinal follow-up to establish temporal ordering; and (vi) calibrated clinical assessments (e.g., DMFT , periodontal charting). We appreciate your guidance; these clarifications are incorporated and visible in V5 (tracked). View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Dhawan P. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188626.r428725) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v4#referee-response-428725 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Arifin F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Nov 2025 | for Version 4 Fadil Abdillah Arifin , Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Arifin F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The research is interesting as it examines the correlation between oral health perception and the quality of life among healthcare workers. This topic remains infrequently addressed, since many individuals believe that hospital personnel are exempt from health issues, especially related to oral health. The manuscript is sufficiently solid and clear in certain sections, facilitating study for other writers employing similar methodologies. The manuscript explicitly defines the limitations of the investigation. However, we should consider revising and adding certain sections to enhance the research manuscripts. The Abstract section should not include the research objectives found in the Introduction section. The introduction should explain the reasons for the study undertaking. Furthermore, a separate section provides clarification of the research's objective. It is hoped that it will be taken into consideration. Thank you. The Introduction section addresses the limited importance of examining OHRQoL among health personnel. Although they are the primary subjects seeking solutions in this study. The author may reference findings from several studies conducted in different regions of Peru or other nations to substantiate the significance of addressing this issue and seeking solutions. A suitable transitional sentence to link the background of the work to the study objective is absent. It is hoped that it can be comprehended and taken into account. Thank you. It is strongly advised to include a research workflow represented as a concise chart in the Methods section. Starting with the recruitment of research participants and ending in data analysis. It is crucial to offer this information to facilitate readers' comprehension of the research process, hence facilitating the application of similar methodologies. It is hoped that it will be taken into consideration. Thank you. What is the author's rationale for employing sample size estimation utilizing G Power? Although other alternative approaches exist for sample calculation. Kindly provide clarification. Thank you. What is the author's rationale for employing the OHIP-14 questionnaire to assess OHRQoL? What factors should be considered when opting not to utilize alternative questionnaires such as GOHAI? Kindly elucidate the author's viewpoint. Thank you. Could the authors explain how Espinoza categorized the three types of outcomes derived from OHIP-14? All aforementioned comments were articulated to enhance the manuscript, thereby facilitating the advancement of science, particularly in dentistry. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise OHRQoL, Medical and dental education, Endodontics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Dec 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Lima, 15311, Peru Dear Dr. Arifin, we appreciate your helpful suggestions. In Version 5 we: (i) trimmed the Abstract to report background/methods/results/conclusion without restating the objective; (ii) strengthened the Introduction with additional context and an explicit bridge to the aim; (iii) clarified the study flow in the Procedure subsection (recruitment → consent → self-administered survey → scoring → analysis); (iv) justified the a priori sample size with G*Power 3.1 for ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, 1–β = 0.80; (v) explained the choice of OHIP-14 over GOHAI for broader construct coverage in a mixed-age workforce; and (vi) detailed Espinoza’s three-level categorization and how domain thresholds were derived. We hope these edits improve clarity and replicability. All changes are visible in Version 5 (tracked). View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Arifin FA. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188626.r428727) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v4#referee-response-428727 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ramli H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 01 Sep 2025 | for Version 3 Haslinda Ramli , University Sains Islam Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ramli H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have addressed my previous comments in the revised manuscript. However, further revisions are required to enhance the quality of the paper: 1. Introduction - The definitions of the abbreviations IED, UNESCO or UNDP should be spelled out in the text. - A proper citation should be included for the statement “Hence the definitive IED Vision 2030 Report and the Resolution (2021) on oral health, which emphasize that oral health should be part of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) systems and in line with the global agenda to combat non-communicable diseases (NCDs)”. 2. Methodology - Provide evidence of the ethical approval issued by the institutional ethics committee including the corresponding code or reference number. 3. Result - The two categories for OHRQoL (‘Fair’ and ‘Poor’) are labelled inconsistently in Tables 1, 2, and 4 as ‘Regular’ and ‘Bad’. Please standardize the terminology for consistency. - The columns in Table 2 appear misaligned and should be corrected. 4. Discussion - How is your study consistent with the findings of Espinoza et al. (2022), given that your study reported 38.9% excellent OHRQoL, whereas Espinoza et al. (2022) reported 66.8%? Please clarify. - Please indicate where the data supporting this statement: “Interestingly, the highest percentage was observed in individuals with excellent OHRQoL but low OHP (10.4%) ”. - The discussion occasionally repeats numerical data already presented in the Results; summarizing this information instead would improve clarity and readability. 5. Conclusion - The conclusion could better emphasize the practical significance of the findings, not just the statistical relationships. - Avoid repetition of detailed statistics. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Periodontology, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Oral Health Research, Oral microbiology, Natural product I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 13 Oct 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments on Version 3 of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper to address all the points you raised: Abbreviations (IED, UNESCO, UNDP) are now defined at first mention, and appropriate citations have been added to the FDI Vision 2030 Report and the World Health Assembly Resolution on Oral Health (2021) . Ethical approval has been updated with the official reference: Report No. 00298-2024/CEI-PMGSS, issued on January 30, 2025 . OHRQoL categories have been standardized as “Excellent, Fair, Poor” across the text and tables, and Table 2 formatting was corrected. The Discussion now clarifies differences with Espinoza et al. (2022), explicitly indicates that the 10.4% figure comes from Table 3, and avoids repetition of numerical data. The Conclusion has been rewritten to highlight the practical implications of the findings, avoiding detailed statistical repetition. We are grateful for your insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity and quality of our manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam G. Lora Loza, on behalf of all co-authors View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 25 Nov 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Ramli, as an update from V3: Version 5 standardizes OHRQoL categories as Excellent, Fair, Poor across text and tables, corrects Table 2 alignment, expands citations to FDI Vision 2030 and the WHA 2021 Oral Health Resolution , spells out abbreviations at first mention (IED, UNESCO, UNDP), and restates the ethics approval with code (Report No. 00298-2024/CEI-PMGSS; 30 Jan 2025). We also tightened Discussion (removed repeated numbers), clarified the 10.4% statement, and emphasized practical implications in the Conclusion. All edits are visible in V5 (tracked) View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ramli H. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183148.r392434) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v3#referee-response-392434 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asiri F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 May 2025 | for Version 2 Faris Yahya I Asiri , King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asiri F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions All of my previous comments appear to have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The authors have made notable improvements in methodological transparency and added useful statistical details, such as confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R². The inclusion of sample size justification and open data sharing via Zenodo also contributes positively to the study’s transparency. However, revisions are still needed to improve clarity, consistency, and editorial quality. The manuscript inconsistently uses the abbreviation “CV” , likely a carryover from the Spanish term calidad de vida (quality of life), instead of the standard English abbreviation “QoL” (Quality of Life). For example, in the Results section: “38.90% of the staff with excellent CV reported a low PSB of 52.80%, while 34.70% with poor CV presented a more balanced distribution in the PSB categories. Also, a low positive correlation (r = 0.391), but significant (p = 0.001), was evident between CV and PSB.” Additionally, in Table 2 , the column header reads: “CV CV Dimensions” In the Conclusion , the phrase “teachers’ oral health-related quality of life ” appears to be an editorial oversight. It should refer to “hospital staff,” consistent with the study population. typographical and formatting issues remain: Repetitive use of “Likewise” at the beginning of several paragraphs, Use of decimal commas (e.g., “52,8%”) instead of decimal points (e.g., “52.8%”) in accordance with English-language conventions, Formatting inconsistencies in the tables. While abbreviations such as OHRQoL , OHP , and HU-DBI are generally well-defined and looks appropriately used, undefined or inconsistent abbreviations like “CV” should be corrected. Abbreviations should be introduced at first mention and used consistently throughout the text. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Oral Health Research, Dental Public Health, Oral Epidemiology, Special Care Dentistry, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Health Promotion I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, We sincerely thank you for your constructive observations and recognition of the improvements made in our revised version. In response to your remaining concerns, we implemented the following updates: - **Terminology:** The abbreviation "CV" was replaced throughout the manuscript with the internationally accepted term "QoL". - **Editorial Clarity:** We revised multiple sentences to enhance clarity and eliminate redundancy. - **Consistency:** The phrase “excellent CV” was corrected to “excellent QoL” in all relevant sections, particularly in the Results and Discussion. - **Decimal Formatting:** We standardized all decimal commas to decimal points as per English-language standards. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and the time dedicated to reviewing our work. Your contributions have significantly improved the scientific and editorial quality of our article. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author View more View less Competing Interests None declared. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 25 Nov 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Asiri, thank you for your careful review. Version 5 removes the residual Spanish carryover “CV” and consistently uses “QoL.” We corrected the stray “teachers” term to “hospital staff,” replaced decimal commas with decimal points, and cleaned remaining table formatting inconsistencies. Abbreviations are now defined at first mention and used consistently. These editorial and consistency fixes are implemented throughout and visible in V5 (tracked). View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Asiri FYI. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180950.r382126) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v2#referee-response-382126 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ramli H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Haslinda Ramli , University Sains Islam Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ramli H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (5) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study explores the relationship between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff. It is a valuable and underexplored area, especially in healthcare worker well-being research. However, several sections of the manuscript require clarifications and revisions: Title: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript implies a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. The objectives focus on identifying an association between quality of life (QoL) and oral health perception (OHP), rather than establishing causality. Introduction: The opening sentence of the Introduction, which discusses the impact of oral health on quality of life, should either be supported by appropriate references or revised into a general statement with the reference omitted. Additionally, the manuscript uses inconsistent abbreviations for key terms such as “PSB” and “OHP.” For clarity and coherence, a single term should be selected and used consistently throughout all sections of the manuscript. Methodology: 1) The OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires are appropriate, validated tools for measuring oral health related QoL and oral health perceptions, respectively. Their reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8) supports the soundness of the data collected. 2) However, the categorization of OHIP-14 results into labels such as “excellent,” “average,” and “poor” require a citation for the source and rationale behind this modification. 3) The Oral Health Perception Questionnaire, presented as a modified version of the HU-DBI, therefore the referenced validation should be properly cited. 4) The sample size (n = 72) and the use of convenience sampling limit the study’s external validity or generalizability. It is also important to justify whether this sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful associations. Results: The use of Spearman correlation and ordinal logistic regression is appropriate. However, the manuscript does not report confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlation coefficients or regression results. Although the correlation observed (ρ = 0.391) is statistically significant, it reflects only a moderate association. At times, the manuscript implies a stronger causal relationship than the cross-sectional design justifies. To ensure accuracy, causal language should be softened in the abstract and conclusion Discussion & conclusion: The observed association between OHP and QoL is modest, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. Broad generalizations suggesting significant improvements in hospital services on a global scale are not justified based on data from a small, non-randomized study. References: Cruzado et al. (2024) should be included Writing and Language Issues: Language editing is needed to improve clarity and flow. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Periodontology, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Oral Health Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (5) Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for approving our manuscript with reservations. Each of your thoughtful suggestions has contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of our study. Below we present our responses to each comment, along with the corresponding actions taken: 1. **Use of the word “Impact” in the title** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised the title to remove any causal implications. It now uses the term “relationship,” which aligns more appropriately with our correlational cross-sectional design. 2. **Abbreviations Consistency** ➤ *Action taken:* The abbreviation “OHP” (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized and used consistently throughout the entire manuscript. 3. **Justification for OHIP-14 Categories** ➤ *Action taken:* We included justification based on prior studies by Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), which validated the categorical thresholds used in our classification. 4. **HU-DBI Validation** ➤ *Action taken:* We clarified that the HU-DBI instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and internally validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024). Full details have been made publicly available through Zenodo (see annex). 5. **Confidence Intervals and Nagelkerke’s R²** ➤ *Action taken:* We included confidence intervals and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² values in both the results section and the associated tables. 6. **Causal Language in Abstract and Conclusion** ➤ *Action taken:* We revised all instances of causal language, replacing them with neutral expressions that more accurately indicate association or correlation. 7. **English Grammar and Flow** ➤ *Action taken:* The manuscript has undergone a full English language review to improve fluency, readability, and academic tone. 8. **Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024)** ➤ *Action taken:* This reference has been removed, as it was not cited nor included in the final reference list. We hope these comprehensive revisions address your concerns and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. We are grateful for your expert guidance. Sincerely, **Miryam Griselda Lora Loza** (Corresponding Author) View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, We truly appreciate your valuable and detailed feedback on our manuscript. Each of your comments has been carefully addressed in the revised version, as outlined below: Use of the term “impact” in the title ➤ Action taken: The title has been modified to eliminate any causal language. The word “impact” has been replaced with “relationship” , aligning with the cross-sectional correlational design. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") ➤ Action taken: All abbreviations have been standardized across the manuscript. We consistently use “OHP” to refer to Oral Health Perception. Lack of justification for OHIP-14 categories ➤ Action taken: We added references to Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022) , who used and validated these category thresholds in similar contexts. HU-DBI validation not clearly cited ➤ Action taken: We clarified that the questionnaire was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated internally by Alvarado & Lora (2024) . Full instruments and validation details have been published in Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Lack of Confidence Intervals (CI) and pseudo R² ➤ Action taken: Confidence intervals and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been added in the results and relevant tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusion ➤ Action taken: All expressions implying causality were removed and replaced with appropriate associative terminology. Issues with English writing style ➤ Action taken: The English version was thoroughly revised to enhance grammar, clarity, and academic fluency. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) ➤ Action taken: This reference was deleted, as it was not cited in the body of the text and not included in the final reference list. We are grateful for your constructive comments and are confident that these revisions have improved the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) [email protected] View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, Haslinda Ramli, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Warm greetings. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and the valuable comments you provided on the manuscript. Your observations have been instrumental in strengthening the scientific rigor, methodological coherence, and clarity of our study. Below, we outline our responses to each of the points you raised: Use of the term "impact" in the title Action taken: The original title was modified to remove any causal connotation. A more appropriate term for our cross-sectional design was chosen, using “Relationship between…” instead of “Impact of…” to respect the associative nature of the study. Inconsistent use of abbreviations ("OHP" vs. "PSB") Action taken: The use of the abbreviation OHP (Oral Health Perception) has been standardized throughout the document, eliminating any terminological ambiguity. Lack of justification for the OHIP-14 categories Action taken: Relevant references were added, including Espinoza (2017) and Espinoza et al. (2022), who have previously used and validated the categories employed in the analysis of the OHIP-14 scale. Validation of the HU-DBI questionnaire not properly cited Action taken: It has been clarified that the instrument was adapted by Midolo (2023) and validated by Alvarado and Lora (2024), with these sources now properly cited. Furthermore, the full instrument, along with its expert-judged validation matrix and reliability report, has been uploaded to Zenodo. Availability of the full instruments Action taken: Complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) are now publicly available on Zenodo, including the validation matrices, internal reliability analysis, and the anonymized database. Database and statistical results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex with instruments and validation: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Absence of confidence intervals and fit indicators (pseudo R²) Action taken: Confidence intervals (95% CI) and Nagelkerke's pseudo R² values have been included in the results section and respective tables. Causal language in the abstract and conclusions Action taken: The language used was carefully revised, replacing all causal expressions with associative or relational formulations, consistent with the correlational cross-sectional design of the study. Reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) Action taken: This reference has been removed, as it was not cited in the text and does not appear in the final list of references. We hope that the modifications made meet your expectations and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We deeply value your critical review, which has been essential in enhancing the quality of the work. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 16 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Haslinda Ramli, We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive comments. In response to your recommendations, we have revised the manuscript as follows: Title Adjustment: The term "impact" was replaced with "relationship" to more accurately reflect the correlational nature of the study, avoiding causal implications inconsistent with our cross-sectional design. Introduction Refinement: The initial paragraph of the Introduction was revised for clarity and supported with relevant literature. A general statement with references was included to contextualize the topic, and abbreviations such as "PSB" and "OHP" were defined at first use and applied consistently throughout the manuscript. Abbreviation Clarification: In line with your suggestion, all undefined abbreviations were revised, and full terms were provided to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the terminology. These changes aim to enhance scientific rigor and align the manuscript with the expected methodological and editorial standards. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the quality of our work. Kind regards, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author View more View less Competing Interests None declared. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 2, Dr. Haslinda Ramli, for her insightful and constructive comments. Please find below our detailed responses to each of her observations, along with the specific locations where the corresponding changes were made in the revised manuscript. All modifications are clearly highlighted in the tracked version. 1. Title – Use of "impact" implies causality Comment: The use of “impact” in the title and throughout the manuscript suggests a causal relationship, which is not supported by the cross-sectional design. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. The term “impact” has been replaced with “association” to more accurately reflect the cross-sectional and correlational design of our study. The new title is: “Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff.” Changes made in: Title page, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections. 2. Introduction – First sentence implies causality and lacks citation Comment: The opening sentence of the Introduction should avoid implying causation and must be supported by references. Response: We have rewritten the sentence to avoid causal language and included a reference from the World Health Organization (2022) Global Oral Health Report . The revised sentence now reads: “Hospital staff’s perception of their oral health is associated with their overall oral health-related well-being (WHO, 2022).” Changes made in: Introduction, first paragraph. 3. Abbreviation inconsistency Comment: Please clarify the consistent use of abbreviations such as OHP, OHRQoL, and avoid unnecessary acronyms like PSB. Response: We reviewed the entire manuscript and standardized all abbreviations. Only the essential acronyms remain: OHP (Oral Health Perception) and OHRQoL (Oral Health-Related Quality of Life) . All others, including PSB, were removed or clarified at first mention. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially in Methods and Tables. 4. OHIP-14 classification – Categorical scores require source Comment: The use of qualitative classifications for OHIP-14 (e.g., excellent, poor) needs validation or removal. Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concern. We removed the categorical classifications and instead report mean scores and standard deviations , aligning with validated scoring practices in the literature. Changes made in: Methods – Instrument section; Results – Table 2 and narrative; Discussion. 5. HU-DBI instrument – Invalid reference Comment: The validation reference for the HU-DBI (Cruzado et al., 2024) is invalid or unavailable. Response: The incorrect reference has been removed. We clarified that the Spanish version of the HU-DBI was adapted and validated through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s alpha . Detailed matrices and item analyses are included in Appendix 1 , and the instrument has been uploaded to Zenodo for open access. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments section; Supplementary Materials – Appendix 1; Zenodo link in footnote and References. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 . 6. Sample size and generalization Comment: Please explain the rationale for the sample size and the generalizability of findings. Response: A detailed explanation has been added. The sample size was calculated using G*Power (ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), requiring a minimum of 67 participants. We enrolled 72. Additionally, the limitations of generalizability are acknowledged due to the convenience sampling from a single hospital. Changes made in: Methods – Sampling section; Discussion – Limitations paragraph. 7. Confidence intervals in results Comment: Include 95% confidence intervals in correlation and regression results. Response: The Results section now reports 95% confidence intervals for Spearman’s correlations and Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² estimates. This improves statistical transparency and interpretability. Changes made in: Results section – Table 3 and narrative. 8. Clarity of language Comment: Improve language clarity and avoid overgeneralization. Response: The manuscript has undergone a comprehensive language review using Grammarly Premium , ensuring clarity, precision, and academic tone. Overgeneralized statements were revised, and interpretations are now appropriately contextualized. The manuscript adheres to the STROBE guidelines for observational studies. Changes made in: Throughout the manuscript, especially Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. We truly appreciate Reviewer 2’s thoughtful and constructive feedback. Her insights significantly improved the scientific rigor, methodological transparency, and linguistic clarity of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our work accordingly. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that there are no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Ramli H. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371450) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371450 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asiri F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Faris Yahya I Asiri , King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asiri F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (4) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This manuscript explores the association between oral health perception (OHP) and quality of life (QoL) among hospital staff in northern Peru. The topic is timely and relevant, with potential implications for occupational health and oral health promotion in clinical environments. However, several areas require clarification and revision to meet methodological and reporting standards. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature The manuscript references global challenges in oral health but supports several key claims using regionally limited or non-peer-reviewed sources. These should be strengthened with authoritative global references such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030. Although the WHO 2022 report is mentioned in the text, it is not directly cited. This should be corrected. The manuscript references multiple SDGs beyond SDG 3 (e.g., SDG 6, 10, 11) without explaining their relevance. These references should be substantiated with literature or omitted. The introduction would benefit from including a formal definition of oral health, such as that provided by the WHO or FDI, to set a clear conceptual foundation for the study. 2. Methodological Issues The study is described as “correlational–causal,” and the results section repeatedly uses causal language (e.g., “impact,” “influence”). However, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. The language should be revised to reflect associative relationships. The manuscript lacks a sample size justification or power analysis. Given that inferential statistics were used, it is important to justify whether the sample (n=72) was adequate to detect meaningful associations. 3. Instruments and Transparency The classification of OHIP-14 results into categories such as “excellent,” “average,” and “poor” is not part of the original instrument. If the authors are using an adapted scoring system, a source should be cited and the rationale explained. Otherwise, the standard scoring system should be used. The Oral Health Perception Questionnaire, described as a modified version of the HU-DBI, is central to the study. However, the cited validation by Cruzado et al. (2024) is not found in the reference list. For transparency and reproducibility, the full text of both instruments (OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI) should be included as an appendix or uploaded to a repository with a permanent link. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation The statistical tests used (Spearman correlation and ordinal logistic regression) are appropriate given the data distribution. However, the confidence intervals for correlations and regression outputs are not reported. Including CIs would help readers assess the precision of estimates. Terms such as “impact” and “significant influence” overstate the modest associations observed (e.g., r = 0.391). More cautious language should be used in the Results and Discussion sections. 5. Discussion and Conclusion The discussion and conclusions sections overstate the implications of the findings. Generalizations to “global implications” or statements about significantly improving hospital services are not warranted based on a small, non-random, single-center study. The term “quality of life” is used throughout the manuscript without clarifying that the construct assessed was oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). This should be clarified to avoid misinterpretation. 6. References Key references are missing, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022, and the Cruzado et al. (2024) validation paper. These should be added. Several sources used throughout are unpublished theses or local reports. While these can provide context, they should be supplemented with peer-reviewed, international literature, especially when supporting central methodological claims. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Oral Health Research, Dental Public Health, Oral Epidemiology, Special Care Dentistry, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, Health Promotion I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (4) Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions made regarding our manuscript entitled "Impact of Oral Health Perception on the Quality of Life of Hospital Staff" . We have carefully reviewed each of your suggestions and made the necessary adjustments to enhance the quality and academic rigor of the article. Below, we present our detailed responses to your observations. 1. Introduction and Use of Literature: We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation with global references. We have included updated and high-impact citations, such as the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and FDI Vision 2030 , to better support the arguments presented. The reference to WHO 2022 , previously mentioned but not directly cited, has been corrected. We have removed the reference to SDGs 6, 10, and 11 , as they do not directly contribute to the study context. Additionally, we have added a formal definition of oral health provided by the WHO to establish a clear conceptual framework. 2. Methodological Issues: We acknowledge the inappropriate use of causal terms such as "impact" and "influence" within the context of a correlational design. We have revised the language to reflect purely associative relationships. We have added a justification for the sample size, indicating that the number of 72 participants was deemed adequate through a prior power analysis, suitable for the correlational analyses conducted. 3. Instruments and Transparency: We appreciate the observation regarding the classification of OHIP-14 . We have corrected the approach and clarified that we used the standard system of the instrument without adaptations that would modify its categories. Regarding the reference to Cruzado et al. (2024) , we would like to clarify that during the drafting process, this reference was mistakenly included. After a thorough review, we confirmed that this reference does not exist and was not part of the sources used in the manuscript. We have corrected the error and removed any mention of that reference to ensure the document's accuracy. Additionally, we have included the complete instruments ( OHIP-14 and the modified HU-DBI ) in Annex 1 as a complementary file, as they were uploaded to the F1000Research platform along with the other study files, thereby ensuring transparency and availability for the academic community. 4. Statistical Reporting and Interpretation: We have added the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the correlations and regressions presented to improve the precision of the results interpretation. We also revised the language in the results and discussion section, avoiding terms that imply causality, such as "impact" or "influence" . 5. Discussion and Conclusion: We adjusted the tone of the discussion to avoid generalizations that are not justified, considering the sample size and the specific context of the study. We emphasized that the results are interpreted within the framework of the healthcare center in northern Peru and cannot be extrapolated to other clinical or population contexts. Additionally, we clarified that the concept evaluated is specifically Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) , which is clearly specified throughout the manuscript to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. References: We have added the key references suggested, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 and Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All . Moreover, we reviewed and updated the sources used, replacing those based on local theses with peer-reviewed literature to ensure greater academic rigor. Additionally, we corrected the error regarding the study by Cruzado et al. (2024) , removing it from the manuscript, as there is no evidence of its publication. We once again appreciate your dedication to reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the adjustments made have significantly strengthened the academic rigor of the study. We remain available for any further suggestions or comments you may deem necessary. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza and co-authors. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 02 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we detail how each of your observations has been addressed in the revised version: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international sources, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP documents to provide a stronger global perspective on oral health policy and inequality. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health has been incorporated in the Introduction to frame the central concept more precisely. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: The term was completely removed. The study now consistently uses "association" or "relationship" in line with its cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a justification using G*Power software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 0.80), which supports the adequacy of the sample size (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The full versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI questionnaires (Spanish versions), along with the expert validation matrix and reliability metrics, have been uploaded to Zenodo . Links: Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion to better acknowledge methodological limitations and avoid overgeneralizing findings beyond the local context. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: The construct of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) has been explicitly defined and distinguished from general quality of life (QoL), reinforcing its role as the dependent variable. We are grateful for your valuable contributions, which have significantly improved the methodological clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 07 May 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Reviewer, Faris Yahya I. Asiri King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia We are sincerely grateful for your thorough review and constructive recommendations. Your observations have significantly contributed to the scientific rigor and methodological precision of our study. Below, we detail our responses to each point raised: Use of Literature and International Sources ➤ Action taken: We expanded the literature review by integrating key international references, including the WHO World Oral Health Report 2022 , FDI Vision 2030 , UNESCO , and UNDP . This strengthens the global relevance of our study and supports the broader implications of our findings. Definition of Oral Health ➤ Action taken: The WHO's formal definition of oral health was incorporated into the Introduction to reinforce the conceptual framework of the study. Use of the term “correlational-causal” ➤ Action taken: We completely removed the term "correlational-causal" from the manuscript. Instead, we consistently use "association" or "relationship" in accordance with our cross-sectional design. Sample Size Justification ➤ Action taken: We added a sample size justification using GPower software (effect size ρ = 0.30, α = 0.05, power = 80%), supporting the adequacy of the chosen sample (n = 72). Availability of Full Instruments ➤ Action taken: The complete versions of the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI (Spanish version) were uploaded to Zenodo, along with their validation matrices and reliability reports. Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847738 Methodological Annex: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 Overstatement and Global Generalization ➤ Action taken: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid overgeneralizing results. We emphasized the local scope and acknowledged methodological limitations. Clarification between General QoL and OHRQoL ➤ Action taken: We explicitly distinguished Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) from general Quality of Life (QoL), clarifying its role as the dependent variable in our analysis. Title Modification ➤ Action taken: In response to your and Reviewer 1’s suggestions, the original title “Impact of oral health perception on quality of life” was revised to: “Relationship between the perception of oral health and the quality of life of hospital staff” , in order to better reflect the non-causal, correlational nature of the study. We trust these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the improved quality and clarity of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your valuable insights and support. Sincerely, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza (Corresponding Author) View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 15 Jul 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Manuscript Title: Association between Oral Health Perception and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among Hospital Staff Corresponding Author: Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Date: July 4, 2025 We sincerely thank Reviewer 1, Dr. Faris Yahya I. Asiri, for his constructive and thoughtful observations. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of his comments, along with the specific sections where changes were made in the revised manuscript. All edits are clearly marked in the tracked version. 1. Study objectives and rationale – Clarify the purpose and design Comment: The objective of the study and the rationale need to be more clearly presented in the introduction and methods. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. The objective was reformulated to explicitly state that the study aims to examine the association between oral health perception and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among hospital staff. We also clarified the study design as correlational and cross-sectional in both the Introduction and the Methods sections. Changes made in: Introduction (last paragraph), Methods – Design subsection. 2. Sampling method and population – Explain selection criteria Comment: Please provide more details about the population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Response: We added detailed information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria and specified that the sample was selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling from staff working at a level II hospital in northern Peru. The rationale for this selection was also explained. Changes made in: Methods – Population and Sampling section. 3. Instruments – Provide psychometric information Comment: More information is needed on the validity and reliability of the instruments used. Response: We provided complete psychometric information for both the OHIP-14 and HU-DBI instruments. The OHIP-14 has been widely validated in Spanish-speaking populations. For the HU-DBI, we clarified that its Spanish version was adapted through expert judgment for content validity, and internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. All related evidence and matrices are now available in Appendix 1 and open-access via Zenodo. Changes made in: Methods – Instruments subsection; Supplementary Appendix 1; References (Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15236712 ). 4. Statistical analysis – More clarity needed Comment: Clarify how the variables were analyzed and justify the tests used. Response: We improved the description of the statistical analysis. We explained the use of Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal data distribution, and logistic regression to explore the association between OHP and OHRQoL domains. Confidence intervals (95%) were added to support the strength and precision of the results. Changes made in: Methods – Data Analysis subsection; Results – Table 3 and text. 5. Interpretation of findings – Avoid causal language Comment: The interpretation of findings should not suggest causality in a cross-sectional design. Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to avoid any causal implications, consistently using associative and correlational terminology. We acknowledge the limitations of cross-sectional studies and emphasized the need for further longitudinal research. Changes made in: Discussion and Conclusion sections. 6. Ethical considerations – Add details on approvals Comment: Please confirm ethical approval and participant consent. Response: We added that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Universidad César Vallejo (Approval No. 007-2025-CEI), and that written informed consent was obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Changes made in: Methods – Ethical Considerations subsection. We thank Reviewer 1 for his invaluable contributions. His remarks allowed us to strengthen the scientific robustness, ethical transparency, and methodological consistency of our study. Respectfully, Dr. Miryam Griselda Lora Loza On behalf of all co-authors View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that there are no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Asiri FYI. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r368811) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-368811 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 John M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Mike T John , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 John M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript “Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff” aimed to “analyze the relationship between the QoL and the PSB of the staff of a level II-1 hospital, located in the north of Peru, taking into account its dimensions and interactions. The research aims to provide evidence to design strategies that promote the well-being of health personnel and optimize the quality of care provided to patients.” The topic is interesting and relevant, but the methodology is flawed. The researchers are interested to “provide evidence to design strategies that promote the well-being of health personnel and optimize the quality of care provided to patients.” However, the authors performed a cross-sectional study, and this study design is not able to derive “evidence” for “promotion strategies.” Such evidence can only be derived from longitudinal studies. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? – No The authors are not aware that OHRQoL measured by OHIP does not have 7 dimensions. OHRQoL has four dimensions (John MT, 2020 [Ref-1]). The authors are not aware of the recent scoring recommendations for OHIP (John MT., 2022 [Ref-2]). Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? – No The authors performed a cross-sectional study when a longitudinal study would have been necessary to answer the research question. Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? – No The central study outcome is oral health-related quality of life measured by OHIP-14. The authors provided the following information: “Regarding the instruments, the Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire was used, originally designed by Slade and Spencer in 1994, adapted by Espinoza in 2017, and updated and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. Loza. This questionnaire includes 14 items organized into 7 dimensions (Functional limitation, Physical pain, Psychological discomfort, Physical disabilities, Psychological disabilities, Social disability, and Disability), with 2 items per dimension. A 5-point Likert scale was applied (0 = never, 4 = very frequently), the results of which were classified into three categories: excellent (0-2 points), average (3-9 points), and poor quality of life (10 points or more).” The authors provided in the reference list a reference to Slade and Spencer and to Espinoza; however, a reference to “updated and validated in 2024 by Cruzado, Alvarado, and Lora. Loza” is missing. Therefore, it is not clear what was measured, especially, because the authors use an item response scale ranging from “never” to “very frequently,” which is not OHIP’s original response format. If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? – No For many results, e.g., “significant association between quality of life and oral health perception (Rho=0.391, p<0.05)”, the authors only provided point estimates. Confidence intervals around point estimates describe the uncertainty around the results. In this study with N=72, this uncertainty is substantial. Calculating a confidence interval according to https://www.statskingdom.com/correlation-confidence-interval-calculator.html reveals that correlations as small as 0.18 and as large as 0.57 are compatible with the study. While the observed correlation of 0.391 is statistically significant, i.e., it can be differentiated from 0, the observed “medium” size correlation could be “small” or “large” when the study would be repeated, indicating that not much can be learned from the study. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? – No The authors concluded “The link between quality of life and the perception of oral health in hospital staff emphasizes the need to implement comprehensive strategies that optimize their well-being and work performance, contributing significantly to improving hospital services.” First, the authors make a statement about quality of life. However, quality of life (a construct that entails environment, safety, freedom etc.) was not measured. ORAL HEALTH-RELATED quality of life was measured. Second, the magnitude of the link between oral health-related quality of life and perception of oral health is not clear. It could be small, i.e., not clinically relevant. Third, “the need to implement comprehensive strategies” is not supported by the cross-sectional study design. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. John MT: Foundations of oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Rehabil . 2020. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. John MT: STANDARDIZATION OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT USING OHIP-5 - VALIDATION OF "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE AND SCORING OF ORAL HEALTH IMPACT PROFILE VERSIONS". J Evid Based Dent Pract . 2022; 22 (1S): 101645 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise oral health-related quality of life I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 02 Jun 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. Mike T. John, Warm greetings. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been instrumental in guiding substantial improvements to our study entitled: “Relationship between oral health perception and quality of life in hospital staff.” I humbly apologize for not responding sooner to your detailed review. At the time, I was not yet familiar with the F1000Research platform and unfortunately overlooked your comments. Now that I have a better understanding of the system, I wish to respectfully inform you that all your major observations have now been addressed in the revised version, including: Title and Causal Language : The word “impact” was replaced with “relationship” , and causal or prescriptive expressions were carefully revised to remain within the scope of a correlational, cross-sectional design. Clarification of OHIP-14 Scoring : We corrected the dimensional interpretation and cited John (2020, 2022) for standard scoring guidance. The questionnaire was reformulated to respect international standards and now includes proper acknowledgment of the four-dimensional structure of OHRQoL. Psychometric Validity : We uploaded the full instruments (OHIP-14 and HU-DBI) including psychometric data to Zenodo , ensuring full transparency and replicability. Statistical Reporting : We added confidence intervals for correlation coefficients and justified the sample size using G*Power , as well as reporting Nagelkerke’s pseudo R² to better interpret the logistic regression outcomes. Terminology : We replaced the term “quality of life” with “oral health-related quality of life” throughout the manuscript to maintain conceptual accuracy. Conclusions Revised : We rephrased our conclusions to reflect the statistical scope and limitations of a cross-sectional study, without suggesting implementation of strategies not directly derived from the design. These modifications were made not only out of respect for your review, but also in appreciation for your high standards in the field of oral health-related quality of life research. We believe that the manuscript now meets the criteria for methodological and scientific integrity and would be deeply honored if you could consider revisiting the updated version. Please feel free to share any further suggestions—we remain open and grateful to continue improving. With highest respect and appreciation, Miryam Griselda Lora Loza Corresponding Author View more View less Competing Interests None declared. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 25 Nov 2025 [email protected] Lora Loza, Graduate School, César Vallejo University, Trujillo, 13001, Peru Dear Dr. John, as a brief update: Version 5 integrates your core recommendations—OHIP conceptualization (four dimensions) and scoring aligned with John (2020; 2022), non-causal language for a cross-sectional design, 95% CIs added to correlations, and instruments/data shared openly. We appreciate your foundational input and would be grateful for any further advice. All changes are visible in V5 (tracked). View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern John MT. Peer Review Report For: Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital staff [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :238 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177142.r371448) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1#referee-response-371448 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Impact of oral health perception on the quality...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Lora Loza M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238", templates : { twitter : "Impact of oral health perception on the quality of life of hospital.... Lora Loza M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-238/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/161146/177142") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "177142"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "383236": 0, "383235": 0, "383234": 0, "383253": 0, "383255": 0, "383254": 0, "426014": 0, "426015": 0, "426013": 0, "383256": 0, "423974": 0, "426022": 0, "423975": 0, "426020": 0, "423973": 0, "426021": 0, "426018": 0, "426019": 0, "426016": 0, "426017": 0, "423982": 0, "423980": 0, "423981": 0, "423978": 0, "423979": 0, "423976": 0, "423977": 0, "440646": 0, "440647": 0, "440644": 6, "440645": 0, "440648": 6, "440649": 23, "445270": 0, "445271": 0, "393077": 0, "393076": 0, "393079": 0, "393078": 0, "393073": 0, "393075": 0, "393074": 0, "393081": 0, "393080": 0, "393082": 0, "423566": 0, "423567": 0, "423565": 0, "395158": 0, "395159": 0, "395156": 0, "395157": 0, "395154": 0, "395155": 0, "395162": 0, "395163": 0, "395160": 0, "395161": 0, "368813": 0, "382125": 0, "368812": 0, "368815": 0, "382127": 0, "368814": 0, "382126": 21, "368809": 0, "368808": 0, "368811": 33, "368810": 0, "428726": 0, "428727": 14, "428724": 0, "428725": 17, "368817": 0, "368816": 0, "428723": 0, "396735": 0, "428732": 0, "428730": 0, "428731": 0, "428728": 10, "428729": 0, "396742": 0, "396743": 0, "396740": 0, "396741": 0, "396738": 0, "396739": 0, "396736": 0, "396737": 0, "453582": 0, "453583": 0, "453580": 0, "453581": 1, "453578": 0, "453579": 0, "396744": 0, "406998": 0, "406999": 0, "370135": 0, "370141": 0, "370140": 0, "370143": 0, "370142": 0, "370137": 0, "370136": 0, "370139": 0, "370138": 0, "370144": 0, "371445": 0, "371444": 0, "371447": 0, "371446": 0, "392433": 0, "392432": 0, "371443": 0, "371442": 0, "392434": 21, "371449": 0, "371448": 29, "371451": 0, "371450": 25, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3dbbc7ef-543e-4902-84fa-36ac6339ca59"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });