Evaluation of service provision patterns during a public-funded dental program

Brennan, DS; Spencer, A. John

doi:10.1111/j.1467-842x.1999.tb01224.x

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Insurance was associated with higher preventive and lower extraction rates. These patterns are consistent with more favorable service patterns for nonemergency visits and insured patients observed in Australian private general practice (10) and for nonemergency visits in the public sector (43).…”

Section: Dental Knowledge and Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 84%

Influence of Patient, Visit, and Oral Health Factors on Dental Service Provision

Brennan¹,

Spencer²

2002

J Public Health Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After controlling for oral health, visit characteristics persisted as significant predictors of services, with nonemergency visits, insurance, and capital city location associated with more favorable service mix patterns. Higher socioeconomic status areas and payment scale ratings also were associated with a better service pattern in particular service areas. These findings show that a wide range of factors, in addition to oral health, contribute to variation in service provision.

show abstract

Section: Dental Knowledge and Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 84%

Influence of Patient, Visit, and Oral Health Factors on Dental Service Provision

Brennan¹,

Spencer²

2002

J Public Health Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The positive association between card holder status and poorer oral health-related quality of life is consistent with previous observations that card holders in Australia suffer from problems with access to dental care, and these access problems have been associated with high levels of emergency visits, and high rates of extraction [ 45 ]. Problem-oriented dental visit patterns have been associated with less favourable patterns of dental service provision in the private [ 38 ] and public sector [ 46 ], poorer oral health status [ 47 ], and worse quality of life [ 33 ]. Similar observations have been made in other countries, such as higher recovery from quality of life decrements among regular dental attenders and those making check-up visits in the USA [ 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative affect and oral health-related quality of life

Brennan

Singh

Spencer

et al. 2006

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 The population monitoring and surveillance activity of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Dental Statistics and Research Unit (DSRU) has revealed persistent and significant differences between population groups in adult oral health in Australia for more than a decade, showing that adults who were economically disadvantaged experienced poorer oral health 5 as did Indigenous Australians, 6 older adults in residential care, 7 migrants, 8 rural and remote dwellers, 9 and adults eligible for publicly funded dental care. [10][11][12][13] The linkage by DSRU of 1987/88 National Oral Health Survey data to area indices of socioeconomic status revealed marked inequality in the rates of edentulism and in the prevalence of decayed, missing and filled teeth. 5 Other research found an eightfold difference in the percentage of adults aged 45-64 years who reported edentulism (complete tooth loss) across f ive levels of household income.…”

Section: S Ocial Inequality In Population Oralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Inequality: Social inequality in perceived oral health among adults in Australia

Sanders

Spencer

2004

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To establish population estimates of self‐assessed tooth loss and subjective oral health and describe the social distribution of these measures among dentate adults in Australia. Methods: Self‐report data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 3,678 adults aged 18–91 years who participated in the 1999 National Dental Telephone Interview Survey and completed a subsequent mail survey. Oral health was evaluated using (1) self‐assessed tooth loss, (2) the 14‐item Oral Health Impact Profile, and (3) a global six‐point rating of oral health. Results: While the absolute difference in tooth loss across household income levels increased at each successive age group (18–44 years, 45–64 years, 65+ years) from 0.7 teeth to 6.1 teeth, the magnitude of the difference was approximately twofold at each age group. For subjective oral health measures, the magnitude of difference across income groups was most pronounced in the 18–44 years age group. In multivariate analysis, low household income, blue‐collar occupation, and high residential area disadvantage were positively associated with social impact from oral conditions and pathological tooth loss. Speaking other than English at home (relative to English), low household income (relative to high income), and vocational relative to tertiary education were each associated with more than twice the odds of poor self‐rated oral health. Conclusions: Significant social differentials in perceived oral health exist among dentate adults. Inequalities span the socio‐economic hierarchy. Implications: In addition to improving overall levels of oral health in the adult community, goals and targets should aim to reduce social inequalities in the distribution of outcomes.

show abstract

Evaluation of service provision patterns during a public-funded dental program

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Influence of Patient, Visit, and Oral Health Factors on Dental Service Provision

Influence of Patient, Visit, and Oral Health Factors on Dental Service Provision

Positive and negative affect and oral health-related quality of life

Social Inequality: Social inequality in perceived oral health among adults in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About