Cargando…

Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs). DESIGN: Non-randomised controlled study. SETTING: Six UK primary care dental practices,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hulme, C, Robinson, P G, Saloniki, E C, Vinall-Collier, K, Baxter, P D, Douglas, G, Gibson, B, Godson, J H, Meads, D, Pavitt, S H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020665/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27609858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013549
_version_ 1782453246808293376
author Hulme, C
Robinson, P G
Saloniki, E C
Vinall-Collier, K
Baxter, P D
Douglas, G
Gibson, B
Godson, J H
Meads, D
Pavitt, S H
author_facet Hulme, C
Robinson, P G
Saloniki, E C
Vinall-Collier, K
Baxter, P D
Douglas, G
Gibson, B
Godson, J H
Meads, D
Pavitt, S H
author_sort Hulme, C
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs). DESIGN: Non-randomised controlled study. SETTING: Six UK primary care dental practices, three working under a new blended dental contract; three matched practices under a traditional contract. PARTICIPANTS: 550 new adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: A new blended/incentive-driven primary care dentistry contract and service delivery model versus the traditional contract based on UDAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was as follows: percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes were as follows: extracted and filled teeth (%), caries (International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS)), oral health-related quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14)). Incremental cost-effective ratios used OHIP-14 and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: At 24 months, 291/550 (53%) patients returned for final assessment; those lost to follow-up attended 6.46 appointments on average (SD 4.80). The primary outcome favoured patients in the blended contract group. Extractions and fillings were more frequent in this group. Blended contracts were financially attractive for the dental provider but carried a higher cost for the service commissioner. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in oral health-related quality of life in both groups were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first UK study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended contract in primary care dentistry. Although the primary outcome favoured the blended contract, the results are limited because 47% patients did not attend at 24 months. This is consistent with 39% of adults not being regular attenders and 27% only visiting their dentist when they have a problem. Promotion of appropriate attendance, especially among those with high need, necessitates being factored into recruitment strategies of future studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5020665
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50206652016-09-20 Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care Hulme, C Robinson, P G Saloniki, E C Vinall-Collier, K Baxter, P D Douglas, G Gibson, B Godson, J H Meads, D Pavitt, S H BMJ Open Dentistry and Oral Medicine OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs). DESIGN: Non-randomised controlled study. SETTING: Six UK primary care dental practices, three working under a new blended dental contract; three matched practices under a traditional contract. PARTICIPANTS: 550 new adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: A new blended/incentive-driven primary care dentistry contract and service delivery model versus the traditional contract based on UDAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was as follows: percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes were as follows: extracted and filled teeth (%), caries (International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS)), oral health-related quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14)). Incremental cost-effective ratios used OHIP-14 and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: At 24 months, 291/550 (53%) patients returned for final assessment; those lost to follow-up attended 6.46 appointments on average (SD 4.80). The primary outcome favoured patients in the blended contract group. Extractions and fillings were more frequent in this group. Blended contracts were financially attractive for the dental provider but carried a higher cost for the service commissioner. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in oral health-related quality of life in both groups were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first UK study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended contract in primary care dentistry. Although the primary outcome favoured the blended contract, the results are limited because 47% patients did not attend at 24 months. This is consistent with 39% of adults not being regular attenders and 27% only visiting their dentist when they have a problem. Promotion of appropriate attendance, especially among those with high need, necessitates being factored into recruitment strategies of future studies. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5020665/ /pubmed/27609858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013549 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Hulme, C
Robinson, P G
Saloniki, E C
Vinall-Collier, K
Baxter, P D
Douglas, G
Gibson, B
Godson, J H
Meads, D
Pavitt, S H
Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title_full Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title_fullStr Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title_full_unstemmed Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title_short Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
title_sort shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care
topic Dentistry and Oral Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020665/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27609858
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013549
work_keys_str_mv AT hulmec shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT robinsonpg shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT salonikiec shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT vinallcollierk shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT baxterpd shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT douglasg shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT gibsonb shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT godsonjh shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT meadsd shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare
AT pavittsh shapingdentalcontractreformaclinicalandcosteffectiveanalysisofincentivedrivencommissioningforimprovedoralhealthinprimarydentalcare