Deakin Health Economics, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Level 3, Building BC, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, 2125, Australia.
Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 Jan;21(1):53-70. doi: 10.1007/s40258-022-00758-5. Epub 2022 Sep 12.
To critically examine the methods used for full economic evaluations of preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis.
Published literature post-2000 was searched to April 2021. Based on a developed intervention classification framework for dental caries and periodontitis, only universal, selective or indicated interventions were included in this review. The Drummond 10-point checklist was used for quality appraisal.
Of 3,007 unique records screened for relevance, 73 studies were reviewed. Most model-based studies (61/73) used cost-effectiveness analysis (49%) or cost-benefit analysis (28%). Trial-based studies (16/73) commonly used cost-effectiveness analysis (59%). Four studies used both economic evaluation methods. Sixty-four papers (88%) were on dental caries, eight papers (11%) focused on periodontitis, and one paper (1%) included both oral diseases; 72% of model-based and 82% of trial-based studies were of good quality. The most frequently investigated dental caries preventive interventions were water fluoridation (universal intervention; cost-saving or cost-effective), fissure sealant and fluoride varnish (selective and indicated interventions; cost-effectiveness outcomes were inconsistent). Supportive periodontal therapy with oral health education (indicated intervention; cost-effective) was the most frequently evaluated preventive intervention for periodontitis. Thirty percent of studies with a time horizon > 1 year did not apply an appropriate discount rate and 26% did not comprehensively discuss other important considerations beyond the technical analysis.
Generic health outcome measures should be incorporated for economic evaluations on preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis, and an increased focus to prevent periodontitis using economic evaluation methods is needed to inform resource allocation and policy decision-making.
批判性地考察用于评估龋齿和牙周病预防干预措施的全经济评价方法。
检索 2000 年后至 2021 年 4 月发表的文献。根据为龋齿和牙周病制定的干预分类框架,仅纳入通用、选择性或针对性干预措施。使用 Drummond 10 分检查表进行质量评估。
在对相关性进行的 3007 项独特记录筛查中,有 73 项研究进行了综述。大多数基于模型的研究(73 项中的 61 项)使用成本效益分析(49%)或成本效益分析(28%)。基于试验的研究(73 项中的 16 项)通常使用成本效益分析(59%)。四项研究同时使用了两种经济评价方法。64 篇论文(88%)是关于龋齿的,8 篇论文(11%)是关于牙周病的,1 篇论文(1%)同时涉及口腔疾病;64%的基于模型的研究和 82%的基于试验的研究质量良好。最常被研究的龋齿预防干预措施是水氟化(通用干预;节省成本或具有成本效益)、窝沟封闭和氟化物漆(选择性和针对性干预;成本效益结果不一致)。牙周病最常被评估的预防干预措施是牙周支持治疗加口腔健康教育(针对性干预;具有成本效益)。30%的时间跨度超过 1 年的研究未应用适当的贴现率,26%的研究未全面讨论技术分析之外的其他重要考虑因素。
应将通用健康结果指标纳入龋齿和牙周病预防干预措施的经济评价中,需要更多地使用经济评价方法来预防牙周病,以告知资源配置和决策制定。