The Urban Dental Index: a Method for Measuring and Mapping Dental Health Disparities across Urban Areas

The aim of this study was to create an Urban Dental Index (UDI) for Perth, Western Australia, adapting a method utilised by the World Health Organisation. Dental health indicators were derived from the 2011 census, standardised on a (0,1) interval, amalgamated using a geometric mean, and mapped to identify dental health inequity. The validity of the UDI was tested by comparison with oral cellulitis data. Dental health disparities were examined using a ratio of the mean of the highest to lowest decile and slope of the eight middle deciles. The robustness of the UDI was tested using indicator correlation, weighting, and systematic indicator removal. There were a high proportion of low UDI census areas outside the inner city. Adult public dental clinics were unevenly distributed across these low UDI areas. The UDI was significantly correlated with oral cellulitis data and had a moderate disparity ratio (1.69) and slope (0.23). All dental indicators were highly correlated, and UDIs calculated with weighted indicators and indicators removed were significantly correlated with the original UDI. These results indicate that the UDI is a robust tool which can be used by policy makers to target dental health initiatives to high-risk areas.

National dental waitlists: what would it take to reset to zero?

Objective Over the years, long public dental waitlists across Australia have received much attention from the media. The issue for eligible patients, namely a further deterioration of dental health because of not being able to address dental concerns relatively quickly, has been the subject of several state and Federal initiatives. The present study provides a cost model for eliminating public dental waitlists across Australia and compares these results with the cost of contracting out public dental care to private clinics. Methods Waitlist data from across Australia were collected from publicly available sources and confirmed through direct communication with each individual State or Territory Dental Health body. Average costs associated with employing key dental personnel and performance figures were used from previously published data to estimate the potential financial commitment and probable public benefits. Results The cost model suggests that, on average, it would be more than twice as expensive to contract the work out to private dental clinics as to treat eligible patients within public dental clinics. It is estimated that the cost of eliminating the legacy dental waiting lists (over 12 months) would be between A$50 and A$100million depending on the method adopted. The effort would require some 360 dental teams. Conclusion The design of the Australian public dental care system that is targeted at meeting the needs of eligible patients into the future, in addition to being effective and sustainable, must also offer a level of protection to the taxpayer. The ability to address waitlist backlog identified in the present study clearly would require a mix of service models depending on service availability at different locations. Further research is needed to optimise the mix of service providers to address community needs. What is known about the topic? Long public dental waitlists across Australia have received much attention from the media. The topic has been the subject of debate at the government level and, over the years, has seen an increase in allocation of public funds in an effort to address the policy needs. What does this paper add? This study calculates the actual number of people on the public dental waitlist, provides a detailed analysis of the distribution of the demand for the services and offers a cost model for resetting public dental waitlists across Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? This study carries no implications for individual practitioners at the clinical level. However, at the state and national levels, this model offers direction to a more cost-effective allocation of public funds and human resources.

Impact of dental National Partnership Agreements on public dental service waiting lists in Queensland

OBJECTIVE

Analyse the Queensland Dental Public Service waiting list from 2013 to 2015 while various funding agreements between the federal and state and territory governments were in place.

METHODS

Queensland Public Dental Service waiting list is open data and is updated monthly. This analysis reports on the changing number of people waiting for care and the percentage of people waiting beyond the reasonable period.

RESULTS

While the number of people waiting decreased when funding was specifically allocated to "blitz the dental public waiting list", these have since increased back to pre-blitz period numbers. The percentage now waiting beyond the reasonable period has decreased from 57% to 28% over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

While the 'blitz' was successful in reducing waiting list numbers, this was not sustained. The deferred federal funding to states/territories for dental services may have worsened the situation. Implications for Public Health: While an injection of funds to reduce the waiting list is important and has had an impact, to adequately address oral health will require not just continuing funding, but also a shift away from the current curative 'downstream' approach towards a health-promotive 'upstream' approach. This will reduce not only the cost of treatment, but also waiting lists.

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a single annual professional intervention for the prevention of childhood dental caries in a remote rural Indigenous community

Background

The aim of the study is to reduce the high prevalence of tooth decay in children in a remote, rural Indigenous community in Australia, by application of a single annual dental preventive intervention. The study seeks to (1) assess the effectiveness of an annual oral health preventive intervention in slowing the incidence of dental caries in children in this community, (2) identify the mediating role of known risk factors for dental caries and (3) assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the intervention.

Methods/design

The intervention is novel in that most dental preventive interventions require regular re-application, which is not possible in resource constrained communities. While tooth decay is preventable, self-care and healthy habits are lacking in these communities, placing more emphasis on health services to deliver an effective dental preventive intervention. Importantly, the study will assess cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness for broader implementation across similar communities in Australia and internationally.

Discussion

There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of dental decay in these communities, by implementing effective, cost-effective, feasible and sustainable dental prevention programs. Expected outcomes of this study include improved oral and general health of children within the community; an understanding of the costs associated with the intervention provided, and its comparison with the costs of allowing new lesions to develop, with associated treatment costs. Findings should be generalisable to similar communities around the world.

The research is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), registration number ACTRN12615000693527; date of registration: 3rd July 2015.