The INCENTIVE study: a mixed-methods evaluation of an innovation in commissioning and delivery of primary dental care compared with traditional dental contracting

Abstract

Godson J, et al. The INCENTIVE study: a mixed-methods evaluation of an innovation in commissioning and delivery of primary dental care compared with traditional dental contracting. Health Serv Deliv Res 2016;4(18). Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 09/1004/04. The contractual start date was in January 2012. The final report began editorial review in June 2015 and was accepted for publication in October 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the...

The cost‐effectiveness of oral health interventions: A systematic review of cost‐utility analyses

“…Most of the studies (n = 7; 30%) were conducted in the USA, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] followed (n = 4; 17%) by the UK. 15,[28][29][30] Three studies (13%) from each were conducted in Australia [31][32][33] and The Netherlands [34][35][36] whereas only 2 studies (9%) were reported from the Asian region 37,38 (Table 1). Among the selected articles, the most frequent were on oral cancer (n = 6; 26%), 23,24,27,29,34,36 prosthetic management (n = 6; 26%) 28,35,[38][39][40][41] and prevention of dental caries (n = 4; 17%).…”

“…values from the patients using the time trade-off method. The Euro-Qol-EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used by four studies, 28,30,36,37 and one study 33 used the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) questionnaire with utility values based on proxy population weights. One study 35 converted patients' SF-36 scores to QALYs using the SF-6D excel scoring programme (Table S2).…”

“…One study 35 converted patients' SF-36 scores to QALYs using the SF-6D excel scoring programme (Table S2). The two studies 31,32 Of the 23 studies, perspectives included societal measures, [21][22][23][24]33,35,37 the healthcare systems, [28][29][30]32,36,41 and patient or thirdparty payer, [25][26][27]30,35,40 whereas 6 studies did not explicitly state the perspective used in their analysis 15,31,34,38,39,42 (Table 1). The costs of interventions included in the analyses showed marked differences in their scope and categorization and were reported in substantially differing forms such as direct costs, indirect costs, recurrent and capital costs, professional charges, treatment and total cost.…”

“…The most frequent currency presented was US Dollars (n = 9; 39%). Seven studies 15,24,25,30,34,35,39 did not report the base year and/or conversion of the currencies used (Table S3). Most of the studies (n = 12) used 3% to discount both costs and benefits.…”

Assessment of reliability and validity of Montenegrin version of the oral health impact profile for use among the elderly in Montenegro

“…During the 1980s and 1990s, Reisine, Bailit, Sheiham, Croog, Roseenberg and many others continued the trials. Today, there are a vast number of clinically verified indices, and each day they are improving postures and creating new indexes [7,8,9].…”