Nguyen Tan Minh, Le Long Khanh-Dao, Calache Hanny, Mihalopoulos Cathrine
Health Economics Group, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St Kilda Road, VIC, 3004, Melbourne, Australia.
Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, VIC, 3125, Burwood, Australia.
Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Apr 30. doi: 10.1007/s10198-025-01787-2.
This study aims to economically evaluate three preventive interventions for dental caries among Australian children from low household income. The interventions included: (1) anticipatory guidance provided by oral health therapists via 1a) home visits or 1b) telehealth consultations; (2) school-based dental screening and fluoride varnish program delivered by 2a) dental practitioners or 2b) non-dental health professionals (no screening); and (3) school-based fissure sealant program. The base-case scenario included intervention and dental treatment costs, with six-year (1a and 1b) and two-year (2a, 2b and 3) time horizons. Sensitivity analysis included other healthcare costs (e.g. pulp therapy, extractions, etc.). Additionally, extrapolation modelling extended the 12-year time horizon (all interventions). Probability for cost-effectiveness applied AUD$50,000 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, and AUD$28,033 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained willingness-to-pay thresholds. Under the base-case scenario, none of the interventions were cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive when including other healthcare costs and the 12-year time horizon. Probability for cost-effectiveness (DALYs averted/QALYs gained) with extrapolation modelling in order of ranking were: (1) 91.5%/94.7% for fluoride varnish, (2) 43.9%/48.6% for dental screening and fluoride varnish, (3) 28.7%/29.8% for anticipatory guidance via telehealth, (4) 17.1%/20.0% for fissure sealant, and (5) 2.2%/2.2% for anticipatory guidance via home visits.
本研究旨在对澳大利亚低收入家庭儿童的三种龋齿预防干预措施进行经济评估。干预措施包括:(1)口腔健康治疗师通过1a)家访或1b)远程医疗咨询提供的预防性指导;(2)由2a)牙科医生或2b)非牙科卫生专业人员开展的基于学校的牙科筛查和氟化物涂漆项目(无筛查);以及(3)基于学校的窝沟封闭项目。基础案例包括干预和牙科治疗成本,时间跨度为六年(1a和1b)以及两年(2a、2b和3)。敏感性分析包括其他医疗成本(如牙髓治疗、拔牙等)。此外,外推模型将时间跨度延长至12年(所有干预措施)。成本效益概率采用每避免一个伤残调整生命年(DALY)50,000澳元,以及每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)28,033澳元的支付意愿阈值。在基础案例中,没有一种干预措施具有成本效益。当纳入其他医疗成本和12年时间跨度时,成本效益结果较为敏感。外推模型下按排名顺序的成本效益概率(避免的DALY/获得的QALY)为:(1)氟化物涂漆为91.5%/94.7%,(2)牙科筛查和氟化物涂漆为43.9%/48.6%,(3)通过远程医疗的预防性指导为28.7%/