The value of orthodontics: Do parents' willingness to pay values reflect the IOTN?

People's Willingness to Pay for Dental Checkups and the Associated Individual Characteristics: A Nationwide Web-Based Survey among Japanese Adults

This study aimed to determine the willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for dental checkups and analyze the association between the values and individual characteristics. This cross-sectional study was conducted using a nationwide web-based survey, and 3336 participants were allocated into groups that received regular dental checkups (RDC; n = 1785) and those who did not (non-RDC; n = 1551). There was a statistically significant difference in the WTP value for dental checkups between the RDC (median: 3000 yen [22.51 USD]) and non-RDC groups (2000 yen [15.01 USD]). In the RDC group, age 50-59 years, household income <2 million yen, homemaker and part-time worker employment status, and having children were significantly associated with decreased WTP values; male sex, household incomes ≥8 million yen, and tooth brushing ≥3 times daily were associated with increased WTP values. In the non-RDC group, age ≥30 years, household incomes <4 million yen, and having ≥28 teeth were significantly associated with decreased WTP values; household income ≥8 million yen was associated with increased WTP values. Conclusively, WTP values for dental checkups were lower in the non-RDC group than in the RDC group; in the non-RDC group, those with lower household income aged ≥30 years were more likely to propose lower WTP values, suggesting the need for policy intervention to improve access to RDC.

Factors affecting willingness to pay for NHS-based orthodontic treatment

Objective To assess factors affecting willingness to pay for orthodontic treatment.Methods An online discrete choice experiment and willingness to pay study was conducted on a convenience sample of 250 participants aged 16 and above over a four-month period. Participants completed a series of stated-preference tasks, in which they viewed choice sets with two orthodontic treatment options involving different combinations of attributes: family income; cost to patient; cause of problem; prevention of future problems; age; severity of the problem; and self-esteem/confidence.Results Family income, cost to patient, cause of the problem, age and self-esteem/confidence were the most important attributes influencing participants' decisions to have orthodontic treatment. Participants felt that free NHS-based orthodontic provision should be prioritised for those under 18, regardless of family income, for those with developmental anomalies, particularly where self-esteem and confidence are affected, with younger participants (aged 16-24 years) strongly preferring full NHS funding for those under 18 years old (p = 0.007, 95% CI: 0.57-0.09) who dislike smiling in public, especially where self-esteem and confidence are impaired (p = 0.002, 95% CI: 0.16-0.71). Participants with high annual income had the highest preference for the NHS to fund treatment regardless of income (p = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.13-1.47) and placed an onus on addressing developmental anomalies (p = 0.004, 95% CI: 0.22-1.15). In total, 159 (63.6%) of those who would undergo treatment were willing to pay for it, with the majority (88%) open to paying up to £2,000 and only three participants stating the NHS should not contribute towards the cost of orthodontic treatment.Conclusions Based on this pilot study, key factors influencing the decision to undergo treatment included family income, cost, the aetiology of malocclusion, age and self-esteem/confidence. It was felt that free NHS-based treatment should be given priority where self-esteem and confidence are impaired among young people. Further research to inform the priorities underpinning the provision of dental care and orthodontic treatment within the NHS is required.

Prioritising NHS dental treatments: a mixed-methods study

Objectives To determine the priorities of patients and dental professionals concerning NHS dental treatments, the factors influencing prioritisation and the willingness to contribute towards the cost of NHS dental treatments.Methods Focus groups and interviews involving patients and practitioners informed the development of a piloted questionnaire concerning the priorities for NHS dental treatments. Patients attending three purposively selected dental settings in London and Kent, as well as dental professionals working within a large London dental hospital were recruited to participate in this initial qualitative phase. Qualitative interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach. Subsequently, another sample of patients and dental professionals within the three dental settings and dental hospital completed a questionnaire. Regression models were used to determine the predictors of perceived priorities and willingness to contribute to NHS dental costs based on the questionnaire data.Results Three focus groups (n = 9) and one semi-structured interview with patients and one focus group of dental professionals (four general dental practitioners and two dental nurses) were conducted. Participants prioritised NHS dental treatments that improve quality of life and social wellbeing. Factors influencing the prioritisation of NHS dental treatments included: individual responsibility for oral health care; concerns about self-esteem and confidence; age-related issues; and the role of treatment in prevention of future dental and general health problems, with financial concerns underpinning these themes. Out of the 455 questionnaires completed, 414 (383 patients and 31 general dental practitioners) were included in the analysis. The provision of emergency dental treatment for children was afforded the highest priority among both patients (59%) and dentists (74.2%). Both groups of participants felt that full funding for most NHS dental treatments should be prioritised for children (<18 years old) rather than adults (p <0.05).Conclusion Participants prioritised NHS dental treatments that would improve social wellbeing and quality of life, with an emphasis on full coverage for NHS treatment for children and young people. Policy makers should account for these preferences in the planning of NHS dental services.

Prevalence of Missing Values and Protest Zeros in Contingent Valuation in Dental Medicine

Background: The number of contingent valuation (CV) studies in dental medicine using willingness-to-pay (WTP) methodology has substantially increased in recent years. Missing values due to absent information (i.e., missingness) or false information (i.e., protest zeros) are a common problem in WTP studies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of missing values in CV studies in dental medicine, to assess how these have been dealt with, and to suggest recommendations for future research. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO) on 8 June 2021, and hand-searched references of selected reviews. CV studies in clinical dentistry using WTP for valuing a good or service were included. Results: We included 49 WTP studies in our review. Out of these, 19 (38.8%) reported missing values due to absent information, and 28 (57.1%) reported zero values (i.e., WTP valued at zero). Zero values were further classified into true zeros (i.e., representing the underlying preference of the respondent) or protest zeros (i.e., false information as a protest behavior) in only 9 studies. Most studies used a complete case analysis to address missingness while only one study used multiple imputation. Conclusions: There is uncertainty in the dental literature on how to address missing values and zero values in CV studies. Zero values need to be classified as true zeros versus protest zeros with follow-up questions after the WTP elicitation procedure, and then need to be handled differently. Advanced statistical methods are available to address both missing values due to missingness and due to protest zeros but these are currently underused in dental medicine. Failing to appropriately address missing values in CV studies may lead to biased WTP estimates of dental interventions.

An overview of the methodological aspects and policy implications of willingness-to-pay studies in oral health: a scoping review of existing literature

Background

Demands for dental services seem to be beyond the capacities of most healthcare systems these days. Patient preferences have been increasingly emphasized to be considered in the joint decision-making process. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is a recommended method for measuring the utility of health services; increasingly being used in recent decades. Taking these points into consideration, this article aims to provide an overview of the methodological aspects and policy implications of WTP studies in the field of oral health.

Methods

The research was conducted in ISPOR, PubMed and Google Scholar databases. In addition, reference lists of included articles were checked to identify the relevant studies. All studies published were included that were in the English language and reported using WTP for oral health-related goods and services. A data-charting form was developed by a focus group discussion panel of seven experts to derive the main methodological aspects of WTP. Also, Core policy suggestions were categorized through thematic content analysis of the included papers.

Results

The search strategy yielded 389 studies of which 52 were included. WTP studies in oral health show an increasing trend in global publications. The UK and Canada have a greater share in published material than in any other country. The dominant field of these researches is in restorative and prosthetic dentistry, and a wide range of different methodological aspects was documented. Policy suggestions were categorized in three main themes: (A) setting new tariffs or subsidizing the item, (B) provision of the item due to population preferences, and (C) improving literacy regarding the item.

Conclusions

An urgent need for a common framework regarding the design of WTP studies in dentistry seems paramount. Some policy suggestions seem not to be applicable, perhaps due to insufficient familiarity of the researchers with the complexities of the public policymaking process.