Young Adults’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Invasive and Non-invasive Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study

Abstract

To evaluate the preference of young adult patients and their willingness to pay for the different approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from September to December 2019. Young adult orthodontic patients from 18 to 45 years old were interviewed via online survey regarding their perception to the extent of treatment, acceptability of non-invasive (customized appliances and medications) and invasive (surgery) approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic treatment and increase in fees they were willing to pay. Statistical analyses were performed, and gender difference was calculated at P < .05. There are 100 respondents: 70% aged between 18 to 25, 50% male, and 56% with annual income <10 000 SR. About 72% of the respondents decided that treatment takes longer period and 51% wished it would last for less than 6 months. Customized appliances were reported to be the most convenient to use (58%) and to pay (44%), followed by medications (48%). On the other hand, surgery was reported to be the most inconvenient to use (58%) and to pay for (55%). About 70% of the respondents were unwilling to pay more than 10% to 20% for all procedures assessed; considerable variation was not observed in responses between gender at 95% confidence level. Majority of the respondents believed that orthodontic treatment is taking lengthy duration. Less invasive, nonsurgical techniques and procedures were more preferred. Likewise, financial factors play vital role in the selection of their preferred approach. Most of them agrees to provide up to 20% increment of the fee for additional procedures.

Perception of Iraqi Orthodontists and Patients toward Accelerated Orthodontics

“…Regarding the cost, all patients were willing to pay not more than 20% extra fee, while most orthodontists were willing to pay up to 40% for acceleration techniques or appliances ( Table 3 ). The same ability was reported by Linjawi and Abushal [ 29 ].…”

The Perception of Adults and Adolescents of Undergoing and Paying for Tooth Movement Acceleration Procedures in Turkey

“…This finding is in contrast with studies reporting that patients prefer using tooth vibrators more than drug injection. 20,21 Similar to the results of this survey, customized appliances have been reported as the most preferred noninvasive modality in previous studies. [19][20][21] In our country, patients receiving orthodontic treatment in state universities are generally patients of moderate socioeconomic status and they are only charged for the orthodontic materials used.…”

“…Nearly half of adolescents and adults agreed that orthodontic treatment takes too long, as it has been stated in previous studies. [19][20][21] A larger majority of adults desired a shorter treatment time (6-12 months) than adolescents did (12-18 months). This finding is consistent with Umeh et al 20 who stated that adults were more dissatisfied with treatment duration compared to adolescents.…”

“…[19][20][21] A larger majority of adults desired a shorter treatment time (6-12 months) than adolescents did (12-18 months). This finding is consistent with Umeh et al 20 who stated that adults were more dissatisfied with treatment duration compared to adolescents. In contrast, Uribe et al 2 stated that adolescents prefer a shorter period of orthodontic treatment (less than 6 months) than adults.…”

Managing the delivery of venous leg ulcer services: A willingness to pay study

“…WTP is an established stated preference elicitation technique that has been used in health research to elicit the value of healthcare benefits. [16][17][18][19][20][21] In WTP studies respondents make decisions about the maximum price they would be willing to pay to gain a health benefit or their willingness to accept compensation for a disutility, in either a hypothetical or actual scenario. This monetary amount is a measure of the value that respondent has for a given health (dis)benefit.…”