The Value of Preventative Dental Care: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

METHODS

A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

RESULTS

Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

DISCUSSION

The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

Patient preferences and willingness to pay for dental services: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Oral health is a fundamental aspect of overall well-being. However, dental diseases have a significant impact on access to care due to economic and social barriers. This systematic review of the literature on willingness to pay (WTP) for dental services aims to inform policy and planning by identifying the key factors influencing preferences.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science core collection, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations were followed. Original studies on the preference and WTP for dental services published up to October 2023 were considered. Inclusion criteria included an active population aged ≥ 18 years and various methodological approaches to eliciting WTP, such as discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation (CV) techniques. The quality of selected studies was assessed by using the ISPOR checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were eligible for inclusion, indicating that WTP research was primarily based on convenience and non-probabilistic sampling. Mean WTP showed significant variation and was influenced by demographic factors (age, gender), socioeconomic conditions, insurance cover, and perceived need for dental care. The main attributes identified from the studies related to cost (out of pocket payment, price), service delivery, time, and treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The review underlined that demographic and socio-economic variable greatly influence WTP, implying the need for district policies to improve access to dental services. Future research should address the methodological limitations of the included studies and evaluate the potential for prospective studies to enhance understanding of patient preferences in dental care.

Parental preferences for the procedural sedation of children in dentistry: a discrete choice experiment

Purpose

The aim of this study was to explore parental preferences for the procedural sedation of children in dentistry through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to inform clinical decisions and oral health management.

Methods

Based on literature reviews, interviews with parents of pediatric dental patients, and expert consultation, six attributes, including fasting time, recovery time, sedative administration routes, adverse reactions, sedation depth and procedure cost, were incorporated into the DCE questionnaire. The DCE questionnaire collected data on parental preferences for pediatric dental sedation treatment from June to August 2022. A conditional logit model was used to analyze preference and willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute and its level. Subgroup analyses assessing the impact of parents' dental anxiety on procedural sedation preferences were also conducted using conditional logit models.

Results

A total of 186 valid questionnaires were gathered. Parents' preferences for fewer adverse reactions, a milder sedation depth, lower out-of-pocket cost, shorter fasting and recovery times and administration by inhalation were significantly associated with their choice of sedation model. The conditional logit model showed that parents were most interested in treatments with no adverse reactions (0% vs. 15%) (Coef, 1.033; 95% CI, 0.833-1.233), followed by those providing minimal sedation (vs. deep sedation) (Coef, 0.609; 95% CI, 0.448-0.769). Moreover, the relative importance of adverse reactions and fasting time was higher among anxious than nonanxious parents. The study found a WTP threshold of ¥1,538 for reducing adverse reactions (15% to 0%). The WTP threshold for the best sedation procedure scenario (no fasting requirement, 10 min recovery time, administration by inhalation, 0% adverse reaction incidence and minimal sedation) was ¥3,830.

Conclusion

Reducing the adverse reactions and depth of sedation are predominant considerations for parents regarding procedural sedation in pediatric dentistry, followed by lower cost, shorter fasting and recovery times and inhalation sedation. Parents with dental anxiety had a stronger preference for options with a lower incidence of adverse reactions and shorter fasting time than parents without dental anxiety. This discovery is helpful for doctors and can promote collaborative decision-making among parents and doctors.

Assessing Patients' Preferences for Preventive Dental Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background It is crucial to recognize patients' behavioral responses to improve oral healthcare delivery. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) is typically used to measure service user preferences. The purpose of this study was to examine the preferences of the Saudi population regarding primary dental care using a DCE. Materials and methods An online DCE survey was distributed among adults aged 18 years and older living in Saudi Arabia. An orthogonal design was used to reduce the number of combinations while maintaining the main effects that reflect patient preferences. Respondents were presented with a reduced set of 10 cards (tasks), and each of the cards had two concepts (offers). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the sample characteristics. The coefficients were calculated based on discrete choice results on the Qualtrics platform. Results A total of 532 participants completed the survey. Among patients seeking a preventive dental visit, the ability to get an appointment was rated the most important influence on their decision with a relative importance of 41%, followed by the dental care provider (29%) and the dental clinic in relation to the sector and the fees (20%). The least important attribute was the waiting time in minutes, with a relative importance of 10%. Conclusion The study findings revealed that patients make trade-offs when deciding to receive primary dental care. Policymakers can use the study's findings to inform their decisions concerning dental clinic services. The study results suggest that it is possible to improve access to primary dental care by improving the accessibility of appointments.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM the FIRST STEPS of IMPLEMENTING VALUE-BASED ORAL HEALTH CARE: A CASE STUDY FROM the MEDICAL UNIVERSITY of VIENNA

BACKGROUND

Value-based oral healthcare (VBOHC) has two fundamental components, the assessment of patients' dental outcomes and the measurement of the costs to achieve those outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe challenges and opportunities of implementing dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) in clinical care at the University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, in Austria, to determine lessons learned and describe next steps forward to VBOHC implementation.

METHODS

A case study determining lessons learned based on an implementation process to incorporate a dental patient-reported outcome measure (dPROM) in routine clinical care was conducted. The German version of the five items Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5), a dPROM was selected and integrated into the general anamnesis including dental and medical history for patients aged ≥16 years. The anamnesis is paper based and is to be completed by each new patient during the registration process. Thereafter, it is uploaded to the patients' dental record via scan by the main central admission. However, it is then the treating dentist's task to transfer the data into the digital system. Data accuracy between digital and paper forms was investigated, and lessons learned regarding the first steps of implementing VBOHC were summarized based on the implementation process findings.

RESULTS

To date, 8,147 patients were approached to fill in OHIP-5. However, only 266 patients´ OHIP- 5 files were transferred into the digital system by the dentist. To explore the accuracy between the manual transfer of data from paper forms to digital format, the data of 89 randomly selected patients was compared. Of this sample, 74 (83.1%) patient's data sets were found to be identical. Lessons learned included the importance of institutional dedication, stakeholders' engagement, dPROMs integration in follow up visits, the significance of digital solutions, and the continuous monitoring and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Integrating dPROMs in clinical settings is achievable and is the first important step to move forward with VBOHC implementation.

Public Valuation of Direct Restorations: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Direct posterior dental restorations are commonly provided following management of dental caries. Amalgam use has been phased down and the feasibility of a phase-out by 2030 is being explored. Alternative direct restorative materials differ in their outcomes and provision. This research aimed to elicit the UK population's preferences for different attributes of restorations and their willingness to pay (WTP) for restorative services and outcomes. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed with patient and public involvement and distributed to a representative sample of the UK general population using an online survey. Respondents answered 17 choice tasks between pairs of scenarios that varied in levels of 7 attributes (wait for filling, clinician type, filling color, length of procedure, likely discomfort after filling, average life span of filling, and cost). An opt-out (no treatment) was included. Mixed logit models were used for data analysis. Marginal WTP for attribute levels and relative attribute importance were calculated. In total, 1,002 respondents completed the DCE. Overall, respondents were willing to pay £39.52 to reduce a 6-wk wait for treatment to 2 wk, £13.55 to have treatment by a dentist rather than a therapist, £41.66 to change filling color from silvery/gray to white, £0.27 per minute of reduced treatment time, £116.52 to move from persistent to no postoperative pain, and £5.44 per year of increased restoration longevity. Ability to pay affected willingness to pay, with low-income respondents more likely to opt out of treatment and value restoration color (white) and increased longevity significantly lower than those with higher income. Clinicians should understand potential drivers of restoration choice, so they can be discussed with individual patients to obtain consent. It is important that policy makers consider general population preferences for restorative outcomes and services, with an awareness of how income affects these, when considering the potential phase-out of amalgam restorations.