Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE JDR Clinical & Translational Research Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23800844221090444
Y Anopa, L M D Macpherson, A D McMahon, W Wright, D I Conway, E McIntosh
{"title":"Economic Evaluation of the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Y Anopa,&nbsp;L M D Macpherson,&nbsp;A D McMahon,&nbsp;W Wright,&nbsp;D I Conway,&nbsp;E McIntosh","doi":"10.1177/23800844221090444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the same nurseries. TAU represented a multicomponent national child oral health improvement intervention, the Childsmile program, apart from nursery FV.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The EE was a within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing the FV and TAU groups. The CUA was conducted from a National Health Service perspective and followed relevant methods guidance. Within-trial costs included intervention costs and health care resource use costs. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over the 2-y follow-up period. The Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions questionnaire was used to obtain utility scores. National reference costs were used, a discount rate of 1.5% for public health interventions was adopted, multiple imputation methods for missing data were employed, sensitivity analyses were conducted, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 534 participants from the 2014-2015 PT@3 intake were used in the EE analyses, <u>n</u> = 265 (50%) in the FV arm and <u>n</u> = 269 (50%) in the TAU arm. Mean incremental cost per child in the FV arm was £68.37 (<u>P</u> = 0.382; 95% confidence interval [CI], -£18.04 to £143.82). Mean incremental QALY was -0.004 (<u>P</u> = 0.636; 95% CI, -0.016 to 0.007). The probability that the FV intervention was cost-effective at the UK £20,000 threshold was 11.3%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that applying FV in nurseries in addition to TAU (all other components of Childsmile, apart from nursery FV) would not be deemed cost-effective given current UK thresholds. In view of previously proven clinical effectiveness and economic worthiness of the universal nursery toothbrushing component of Childsmile, continuation of the additional, targeted nursery FV component in its pre-COVID-19 form should be reviewed given its low probability of cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Knowledge transfer statement: </strong>The results of this study can be used by child oral health policy makers and dental public health professionals. They can form part of the evidence to inform the Scottish, UK, and international guidance on community-based child oral health promotion programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":14783,"journal":{"name":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285425/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844221090444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: An economic evaluation (EE) was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (the Protecting Teeth @ 3 Study [PT@3]), exploring the additional preventive value of fluoride varnish (FV) application at 6-monthly intervals in nursery schools compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the same nurseries. TAU represented a multicomponent national child oral health improvement intervention, the Childsmile program, apart from nursery FV.

Methods: The EE was a within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing the FV and TAU groups. The CUA was conducted from a National Health Service perspective and followed relevant methods guidance. Within-trial costs included intervention costs and health care resource use costs. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over the 2-y follow-up period. The Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions questionnaire was used to obtain utility scores. National reference costs were used, a discount rate of 1.5% for public health interventions was adopted, multiple imputation methods for missing data were employed, sensitivity analyses were conducted, and incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated.

Results: Data from 534 participants from the 2014-2015 PT@3 intake were used in the EE analyses, n = 265 (50%) in the FV arm and n = 269 (50%) in the TAU arm. Mean incremental cost per child in the FV arm was £68.37 (P = 0.382; 95% confidence interval [CI], -£18.04 to £143.82). Mean incremental QALY was -0.004 (P = 0.636; 95% CI, -0.016 to 0.007). The probability that the FV intervention was cost-effective at the UK £20,000 threshold was 11.3%.

Conclusion: The results indicate that applying FV in nurseries in addition to TAU (all other components of Childsmile, apart from nursery FV) would not be deemed cost-effective given current UK thresholds. In view of previously proven clinical effectiveness and economic worthiness of the universal nursery toothbrushing component of Childsmile, continuation of the additional, targeted nursery FV component in its pre-COVID-19 form should be reviewed given its low probability of cost-effectiveness.

Knowledge transfer statement: The results of this study can be used by child oral health policy makers and dental public health professionals. They can form part of the evidence to inform the Scottish, UK, and international guidance on community-based child oral health promotion programs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护牙齿的经济评价@ 3随机对照试验。
简介:一项经济评估(EE)与一项随机对照试验(保护牙齿@3研究[PT@3])一起进行,探讨在托儿所每6个月使用一次氟化物清漆(FV)与在同一托儿所进行常规治疗(TAU)相比的额外预防价值。除了托儿所FV外,TAU代表了一个多成分的国家儿童口腔健康改善干预措施,Childsmile计划。方法:EE采用试验内成本效用分析(CUA)对FV组和TAU组进行比较。调查从国家卫生服务的角度进行,并遵循了相关的方法指导。试验内成本包括干预成本和卫生保健资源使用成本。健康结果以2年随访期间累积的质量调整生命年(QALYs)表示。使用儿童健康效用9维度问卷获得效用得分。采用国家参考成本,公共卫生干预措施贴现率为1.5%,对缺失数据采用多重代入方法,进行敏感性分析,计算增量成本-效用比。结果:来自2014-2015年PT@3摄入量的534名参与者的数据被用于EE分析,n = 265(50%)在FV组,n = 269(50%)在TAU组。FV组每名儿童的平均增量成本为68.37英镑(P = 0.382;95%置信区间[CI], - 18.04英镑至143.82英镑)。平均增量质量为-0.004 (P = 0.636;95% CI, -0.016 ~ 0.007)。在英国20000英镑的门槛下,FV干预具有成本效益的概率为11.3%。结论:结果表明,考虑到目前英国的阈值,在托儿所应用除TAU (Childsmile的所有其他组成部分,除了托儿所FV)之外的FV将不被认为具有成本效益。鉴于Childsmile通用托儿所牙刷组件先前已证明的临床有效性和经济价值,鉴于成本效益低的可能性,应审查是否继续使用covid -19前形式的额外、有针对性的托儿所FV组件。知识转移声明:本研究的结果可供儿童口腔卫生政策制定者和牙科公共卫生专业人员使用。它们可以成为苏格兰、英国和国际社区儿童口腔健康促进项目指导的部分证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JDR Clinical & Translational Research
JDR Clinical & Translational Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: JDR Clinical & Translational Research seeks to publish the highest quality research articles on clinical and translational research including all of the dental specialties and implantology. Examples include behavioral sciences, cariology, oral & pharyngeal cancer, disease diagnostics, evidence based health care delivery, human genetics, health services research, periodontal diseases, oral medicine, radiology, and pathology. The JDR Clinical & Translational Research expands on its research content by including high-impact health care and global oral health policy statements and systematic reviews of clinical concepts affecting clinical practice. Unique to the JDR Clinical & Translational Research are advances in clinical and translational medicine articles created to focus on research with an immediate potential to affect clinical therapy outcomes.
期刊最新文献
"It's Everybody's and It's Nobody's Responsibility": Stakeholder Perspectives on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Equity at the Nexus of Chronic Kidney Disease and Oral Health. Behavior Change Techniques to Reduce Sugars Intake by Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Altered Surrogate Markers of Inflammation in Perinatal HIV-Exposed Children with Caries. Benefits of Dental Scaling and Polishing in Adults: A Rapid Review and Evidence Synthesis. Effect Modification by Obesity on Nonsurgical Periodontal Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1