Overview of methods in economic analyses of behavioral interventions to promote oral health

Costs And Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation In The United States

The most comprehensive study of US community water fluoridation program benefits and costs was published in 2001. This study provides updated estimates using an economic model that includes recent data on program costs, dental caries increments, and dental treatments. In 2013 more than 211 million people had access to fluoridated water through community water systems serving 1,000 or more people. Savings associated with dental caries averted in 2013 as a result of fluoridation were estimated to be $32.19 per capita for this population. Based on 2013 estimated costs ($324 million), net savings (savings minus costs) from fluoridation systems were estimated to be $6,469 million and the estimated return on investment, 20.0. While communities should assess their specific costs for continuing or implementing a fluoridation program, these updated findings indicate that program savings are likely to exceed costs.

Should we provide oral health training for staff caring for people with intellectual disabilities in community based residential care? A cost-effectiveness analysis

Oral health training is often introduced into community-based residential settings to improve the oral health of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). There is a lack of appropriate evaluation of such programs, leading to difficulty in deciding how best to allocate scarce resources to achieve maximum effect. This article reports an economic analysis of one such oral health program, undertaken as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Firstly, we report a cost-effectiveness analysis of training care-staff compared to no training, using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Effectiveness was measured as change in knowledge, reported behaviors, attitude and self-efficacy, using validated scales (K&BAS). Secondly, we costed training as it was scaled up to include all staff within the service provider in question. Data were collected in Dublin, Ireland in 2009. It cost between €7000 and €10,000 more to achieve modest improvement in K&BAS scores among a subsample of 162 care-staff, in comparison to doing nothing. Considering scaled up first round training, it cost between €58,000 and €64,000 to train the whole population of staff, from a combined dental and disability service perspective. Less than €15,000-€20,000 of this was additional to the cost of doing nothing (incremental cost). From a dental perspective, a further, second training cycle including all staff would cost between €561 and €3484 (capital costs) and €5815 (operating costs) on a two yearly basis. This study indicates that the program was a cost-effective means of improving self-reported measures and possibly oral health, relative to doing nothing. This was mainly due to low cost, rather than the large effect. In this instance, the use of cost effectiveness analysis has produced evidence, which may be more useful to decision makers than that arising from traditional methods of evaluation. There is a need for CEAs of effective interventions to allow comparison between programs. Suggestions to reduce cost are presented.

Pricing health behavior interventions to promote adoption: lessons from the marketing and business literature

The relatively high cost of delivering many public health interventions limits their potential for broad public impact by reducing their likelihood of adoption and maintenance over time. Practitioners identify cost as the primary factor for which interventions they select to implement, but researchers rarely disseminate cost information or consider its importance when developing new interventions. A new approach is proposed whereby intervention developers assess what individuals and agencies adopting their interventions are willing to pay and then design interventions that are responsive to this price range. The ultimate goal is to develop effective and affordable interventions, called lean interventions, which are widely adopted and have greater public health impact.

A Framework for Implementing Sustainable Oral Health Promotion Interventions

The present paper addresses basic evaluation and procedural concepts that are involved in the process of implementing sustainable oral health behavioral and social interventions. It is part of a series of thematic articles describing cutting-edge methods for conducting oral health interventions research. Core components for effective intervention implementation are presented as part of a comprehensive model composed of four stages (training, adoption, implementation, and practice), along with sustaining influences involving preparation and maintenance. This model systematically addresses common barriers that can reduce innovation success and permanence. Special attention is given to the measurement and impact of organizational and related contextual influences across stages of the implementation process. Assessment tools and research strategies are recommended and illustrated based on evaluations of interventions implemented in addiction and mental health treatment systems. These tools and research strategies also hold promise for use within the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Practice-Based Research Networks, as well as other systems of oral health care delivery.