Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
School of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 8;6(9):e013549. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013549.
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs).
Non-randomised controlled study.
Six UK primary care dental practices, three working under a new blended dental contract; three matched practices under a traditional contract.
550 new adult patients.
A new blended/incentive-driven primary care dentistry contract and service delivery model versus the traditional contract based on UDAs.
Primary outcome was as follows: percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes were as follows: extracted and filled teeth (%), caries (International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS)), oral health-related quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14)). Incremental cost-effective ratios used OHIP-14 and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L.
At 24 months, 291/550 (53%) patients returned for final assessment; those lost to follow-up attended 6.46 appointments on average (SD 4.80). The primary outcome favoured patients in the blended contract group. Extractions and fillings were more frequent in this group. Blended contracts were financially attractive for the dental provider but carried a higher cost for the service commissioner. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in oral health-related quality of life in both groups were statistically significant.
This is the first UK study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended contract in primary care dentistry. Although the primary outcome favoured the blended contract, the results are limited because 47% patients did not attend at 24 months. This is consistent with 39% of adults not being regular attenders and 27% only visiting their dentist when they have a problem. Promotion of appropriate attendance, especially among those with high need, necessitates being factored into recruitment strategies of future studies.
评估一种新的混合牙科合同相对于基于牙科活动单位(UDAs)的传统牙科合同在改善口腔健康方面的临床和成本效益。
非随机对照研究。
英国六家初级保健牙科诊所,三家采用新的混合牙科合同;三家匹配的诊所采用传统合同。
550 名新成年患者。
新的混合/激励驱动的初级保健牙科合同和服务提供模式与基于 UDAs 的传统合同相比。
主要结果如下:探诊时牙龈出血的部位百分比。次要结果如下:拔牙和补牙(%)、龋齿(国际龋齿检测和评估系统(ICDAS))、口腔健康相关生活质量(口腔健康影响概况-14(OHIP-14))。增量成本效益比使用 OHIP-14 和来自 EQ-5D-3L 的质量调整生命年(QALYs)。
在 24 个月时,550 名患者中有 291 名(53%)返回进行最终评估;失访者平均就诊 6.46 次(SD 4.80)。主要结果有利于混合合同组的患者。该组拔牙和补牙更为频繁。混合合同对牙科提供者具有财务吸引力,但对服务专员来说成本更高。一般健康相关生活质量的差异可以忽略不计。两组的口腔健康相关生活质量随着时间的推移都有显著改善。
这是英国第一项评估初级保健牙科中混合合同的临床和成本效益的研究。尽管主要结果有利于混合合同,但结果有限,因为 47%的患者在 24 个月时未就诊。这与 39%的成年人不是定期就诊者和 27%的人只有在出现问题时才去看牙医的情况一致。未来研究的招募策略需要考虑促进适当的就诊率,特别是在高需求人群中。