COVID-19 pandemic implied new biosafety recommendations to avoid dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 virus within healthcare centers. Changes on recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), decontamination protocols and organization of patient demand resulted may result in cost variation. Based on this, the present study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19. An Activity Based Costing evaluation was used to calculate the acquisition of PPE and decontamination solutions recommended for dental practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. PPE and decontamination solutions quantity and frequency of use were based on the newly COVID-19 recommendations. Costs (in Brazilian Real-R$) for biosafety recommendations pre-and post-COVID-19 were outlined and calculated for each patient, service shift and year. A sensitivity analysis considered 20% variation of direct costs. Previously to COVID-19 pandemic, direct costs of biosafety recommendations
Background Dental caries is associated with Biological, behavioral, socioeconomic, and environmental factors; however, socioeconomic status is a distal determinant of dental caries development that modulates exposure to risk and protective factors. This study aimed to analyze the socioeconomic factors associated with the concentration of oral diseases in a population-based study in Brazil. Methods This is a quantitative, analytical, cross-sectional study based on secondary data from the SB São Paulo 2015 epidemiological survey. A total of 17,560 subjects were included. The concentration of oral disease in the population was estimated by the oral disease burden (ODB) variable. The ODB consists of four components: dental caries; tooth loss; need for dental prosthesis and periodontal condition. Thus, the total score on the ODB could vary between 0 and 4, with the highest score indicating the worst possible situation. ODB was analyzed in multivariate negative binomial regression, and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. The following factors were included as independent variables: age group, skin color, socioeconomic factors, family income and Oral Impact on Daily Performance (OIDP). Results In the sample, 86.9% had no minimum ODP component. Negative multivariate binomial regression showed a statistically significant relationship (p < 0.005) between ODB and all variables analyzed (skin color, family income, education, OIDP results and age range). The adjusted multivariate binary logistic regression showed that the individuals most likely to have at least one component of ODB were nonwhite (25.5%), had a family income of up to R$ 1500.00/month (19.6%), had only completed primary education (19.1%), and reported that their oral health had an impact on their daily activities (57.6%). Older adults individuals were two times more likely than adolescents to have an ODB component. Conclusions ODB is associated with factors related to social inequality. Adults and older adults individuals had the highest cumulative number of ODB components.
COVID-19 pandemic implied new biosafety recommendations to avoid dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 virus within healthcare centers. Changes on recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), decontamination protocols and organization of patient demand resulted may result in cost variation. Based on this, the present study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19. An Activity Based Costing evaluation was used to calculate the acquisition of PPE and decontamination solutions recommended for dental practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. PPE and decontamination solutions quantity and frequency of use were based on the newly COVID-19 recommendations. Costs (in Brazilian Real – R$) for biosafety recommendations pre- and post-COVID-19 were outlined and calculated for each patient, service shift and year. A sensitivity analysis considered 20% to 50% variation of direct costs. Previously to COVID-19 pandemic, direct costs of biosafety recommendations consisted of R$0.84 per patient, R$6.69 per service shift and R$3,413.94 per year. Post-COVID-19 costs of biosafety recommendations resulted in R$16.01 per patient, R$128.07 per service shift, and R$32,657.96 per year. Yearly costs can vary between R$26,126.37 and R$39,189.56. The annual budget increase necessary to adopt post-COVID biosafety recommendations was R$29,244.02. Newly biosafety recommendations increased significantly the costs of oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19 pandemic. Decision making of healthcare managers must consider rational and equity allocation of financial resources.
Aims: To verify whether oral health teams influence the oral health status, ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence and mortality rate of patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Materials and Methods: Bibliographic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Embase, Livivo, Open Grey, Academic Google, and Cochrane databases. The assessment of the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies and a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize relative risk data for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and mortality were performed. An analysis of the certainty of the evidence was performed for the main outcomes analyzed. Results: Records of 518 studies were analyzed by reading titles and abstracts. Five studies were included according to eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis showed that ICU patients undergoing dental care by an oral health team had a lower incidence of VAP (OR = 0.33; 95% CI: 014-0.76) but did not lower mortality rates (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.16-1.32). The certainty of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion:Dental care provided by oral health teams in a hospital environment did not influence oral health status or mortality, although it contributed to a reduction in VAP of patients admitted to the ICU.
Objectives To explore the factors associated with the waiting time for access to specialized care at Dental Specialties Centers (CEO, in Portuguese), by specialty (Stomatology, Surgery, Endodontics, Patients with Special Needs and Periodontology). Methods The study was a descriptive and analytic exploratory secondary analysis of data from the 2nd phase of the National Program for Improving the Access to and Quality of CEO (PMAQ‐CEO, in Portuguese). All 1097 CEO in Brazil were evaluated in loco in 2018. Binary logistic regression was used to analyse the likelihood of users having a shorter time for assistance at CEO, by specialty. Results The highest and lowest median waiting times were found for endodontics (30 days) and stomatology (5 days), respectively. Smaller centres (type I CEO) had a shorter waiting list for patients with special needs (95%CI: 1.20–3.37), Endodontics (95%CI: 1.03–3.02) and Surgery (95%CI: 1.04–3.05). As for the specialties with the longest waiting list (Endodontics and Surgery), the direct route of user access to CEO was more effective than that regulated by the Healthcare System. Conclusions Factors related to the service, management, and to the form of relationship with primary health care influenced the waiting time for specialized care in CEO. The contact between professionals in the oral health network (primary care and secondary) was associated with a shorter waiting time, regardless of the specialty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.