Mariño Rodrigo, Zaror Carlos
Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics; Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Manuel Montt #112, Temuco, Chile.
BMC Oral Health. 2020 Apr 16;20(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01100-y.
Community water fluoridation (CWF) is considered one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century and has been a cornerstone strategies for the prevention and control of dental caries in many countries. However, for decision-makers the effectiveness and safety of any given intervention is not always sufficient to decide on the best option. Economic evaluations (EE) provide key information that managers weigh, alongside other evidence. This study reviews the relevant literature on EE in CWF.
A systematic database search up to August 2019 was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. The review included full economic evaluations on CWF programs, written in English, Spanish or Portuguese. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed.
Of 498 identified articles, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 corresponded to cost-benefit analysis; nine were cost-effectiveness analyses; and four cost-utility studies. Two cost-utility studies used Disability-Adjusted Life Years,, one used Quality-Adjusted Tooth Years, and another Quality-Adjusted Life Years. EEs were conducted in eight countries. All studies concluded that water fluoridation was a cost-effective strategy when it was compared with non-fluoridated communities, independently of the perspective, time horizon or discount rate applied. Four studies adopted a lifetime time horizon. The outcome measures included caries averted (n = 14) and savings cost of dental treatment (n = 4). Most of the studies reported a caries reduction effects between 25 and 40%.
Findings indicated that CWF represents an appropriate use of communities' resources, using a range of economic evaluation methods and in different locations. These findings provide evidence to decision-makers which they could use as an aid to deciding on resource allocation.
社区水氟化(CWF)被认为是20世纪十大公共卫生成就之一,并且在许多国家一直是预防和控制龋齿的基石策略。然而,对于决策者而言,任何特定干预措施的有效性和安全性并不总是足以决定最佳选择。经济评估(EE)提供了关键信息,管理人员会将其与其他证据一起权衡。本研究回顾了CWF中EE的相关文献。
截至2019年8月,使用MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、LILACS、儿科经济数据库评估和国家卫生服务经济评估数据库进行了系统的数据库检索。该综述包括以英语、西班牙语或葡萄牙语撰写的关于CWF项目的全面经济评估。选择过程和数据提取由两名研究人员独立进行。对结果进行了定性综合分析。
在498篇已识别文章中, 24项研究符合纳入标准;11项对应成本效益分析;9项为成本效果分析;4项为成本效用研究。两项成本效用研究使用伤残调整生命年,一项使用质量调整牙齿年,另一项使用质量调整生命年进行评估。EE在八个国家进行。所有研究均得出结论,与未进行水氟化的社区相比,无论从何种角度、时间范围或应用的贴现率来看,水氟化都是一种具有成本效益的策略。四项研究采用终身时间范围。结果指标包括避免的龋齿(n = 14)和牙科治疗成本节省(n =4)。大多数研究报告龋齿减少效果在25%至40%之间。
研究结果表明CWF使用一系列经济评估方法且在不同地点代表了社区资源的合理利用。这些研究结果为决策者提供了证据,他们可以将其用作决定资源分配的辅助依据。