Unlocking the potential of NHS primary care dental datasets

How effective and cost-effective is water fluoridation for adults and adolescents? The LOTUS 10-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults and adolescents, using a natural experiment design.

METHODS

A 10-year retrospective cohort study (2010-2020) using routinely collected NHS dental treatment claims data. Participants were patients aged 12 years and over, attending NHS primary dental care services in England (17.8 million patients). Using recorded residential locations, individuals exposed to drinking water with an optimal fluoride concentration (≥0.7 mg F/L) were matched to non-exposed individuals using propensity scores. Number of NHS invasive dental treatments, DMFT and missing teeth were compared between groups using negative binomial regression. Total NHS dental treatment costs and cost per invasive dental treatment avoided were calculated.

RESULTS

Matching resulted in an analytical sample of 6.4 million patients. Predicted mean number of invasive NHS dental treatments (restorations 'fillings'/extractions) was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (5.4) than the non-optimally fluoridated group (5.6) (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967, 0.971). Predicted mean DMFT was 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983, 0.985). There was no difference in the predicted mean number of missing teeth per person (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999, 1.003) and no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Optimal water fluoridation in England 2010-2020 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excludes initial set-up costs). NHS dental treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients 2010-2020 were 5.5% lower, by £22.26 per person (95% CI -£21.43, -£23.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of optimal water fluoridation 2010-2020 resulted in very small positive health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals. Existing fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower NHS dental care utilization. This return should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes.

The contract between NHS dentistry and communities and how this varies by neighbourhood types

Introduction There is a growing concern that the NHS's ability to deliver dental care is not keeping pace with population growth. Also, existing capacity may not be evenly distributed, potentially creating dental deserts in some neighbourhoods.Aims This study aims to explore recent trends in NHS general practice dental capacity in England and analyse if these trends vary depending on neighbourhood context.Design This research employs a descriptive analysis of time trends.Materials and methods The study uses data on NHS-contracted capacity in England, measured in units of dental activity (UDAs). These UDAs are geo-located to neighbourhood types using practice postcodes. Changes in the populations of these neighbourhoods provide context for the capacity trends.Results Some trends remain stable over time, albeit at insufficient levels. Rural areas continue to have the lowest capacity for NHS dental treatments. Additionally, areas with previously generous provision are experiencing significant percentage decreases in capacity.Discussion To prevent the formation of dental deserts, two critical issues require attention: firstly, the accessibility of NHS treatment and how it varies across urban/suburban and rural neighbourhoods; secondly, balancing supply and demand by matching the supply of dental care with the demand, conditioned by socio-economic and socio-demographic factors within different neighbourhoods.

Effect of fluoridated water on invasive NHS dental treatments for adults: the LOTUS retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation

Background

Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults.

Objective

To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data.

Setting

National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services.

Participants

Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280).

Intervention and comparison

Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores.

Outcome measures

Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment.

Data sources

National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data.

Primary outcome

Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of -0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI -0.185 to -0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful.

Secondary outcomes

Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of -0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI -0.229 to -0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010-20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010-20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI -£23.09 to -£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices).

Limitations

Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes.

Conclusions

Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes.

Future work

National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted.

Trial registrations

This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Behavioural intervention to promote the uptake of planned care in urgent dental care attenders: a feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Urgent dental care may be the only place where many people, especially vulnerable groups, access care. This presents an opportunity for delivery of a behavioural intervention promoting planned dental visiting, which may help address one of the factors contributing to a socio-economic gradient in oral health. Although we know that cueing events such as having a cancer diagnosis may create a 'teachable moment' stimulating positive changes in health behaviour, we do not know whether delivering an opportunistic intervention in urgent dental care is feasible and acceptable to patients.

METHODS

The feasibility study aimed to recruit 60 patients in a Dental Hospital and dental practices delivering urgent care within and outside working hours. Follow-up was by telephone, e mail and post over 4 months.

RESULTS

Although the recruitment window was shortened because of COVID-19, of 47 patients assessed for eligibility, 28 were enrolled (70.1% of screened patients provided consent). A relatively high proportion were from disadvantaged backgrounds (46.4%, 13/28 receiving State benefits). Retention was 82.1% (23/28), which was also the rate of completion of the Oral Health Impact Profile co-primary outcome. The other primary outcome involved linking participant details at recruitment, with centrally-held data on services provided, with 84.6% (22/26) records partly or fully successfully matched. All intervention participants received at least some of the intervention, although we identified aspects of dental nurse training which would improve intervention fidelity.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recruitment being impacted by the pandemic, when the majority of clinical trials experienced reduced rates of recruitment, we found a high recruitment and consenting rate, even though patients were approached opportunistically to be enrolled in the trial and potentially receive an intervention. Retention rates were also high even though a relatively high proportion had a low socio-economic background. Therefore, even though patients may be in pain, and had not anticipated involvement before their urgent care visit, the study indicated that this was a feasible and acceptable setting in which to position an opportunistic intervention. This has the potential to harness the potential of the 'teachable moment' in people's lives, and provide support to help address health inequalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 10,853,330 07/10/2019.