The vicious cycle of dental fear: exploring the interplay between oral health, service utilization and dental fear

BACKGROUND: Based on the hypothesis that a vicious cycle of dental fear exists, whereby the consequences of fear tend to maintain that fear, the relationship between dental fear, self-reported oral health status and the use of dental services was explored. METHODS: The study used a telephone interview survey with interviews predominantly conducted in 2002. A random sample of 6,112 Australian residents aged 16 years and over was selected from 13 strata across all States and Territories. Data were weighted across strata and by age and sex to obtain unbiased population estimates. RESULTS: People with higher dental fear visited the dentist less often and indicated a longer expected time before visiting a dentist in the future. Higher dental fear was associated with greater perceived need for dental treatment, increased social impact of oral ill-health and worse self-rated oral health. Visiting patterns associated with higher dental fear were more likely to be symptom driven with dental visits more likely to be for a problem or for the relief of pain. All the relationships assumed by a vicious cycle of dental fear were significant. In all, 29.2% of people who were very afraid of going to the dentist had delayed dental visiting, poor oral health and symptom-driven treatment seeking compared to 11.6% of people with no dental fear. CONCLUSION: Results are consistent with a hypothesised vicious cycle of dental fear whereby people with high dental fear are more likely to delay treatment, leading to more extensive dental problems and symptomatic visiting patterns which feed back into the maintenance or exacerbation of existing dental fear

Economic Evaluations of Occupational Health Interventions from a Company’s Perspective: A Systematic Review of Methods to Estimate the Cost of Health-Related Productivity Loss

Objectives: To investigate the methods used to estimate the indirect costs of health-related productivity in economic evaluations from a company’s perspective. Methods: The primary literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase. Supplemental searches were conducted in the Cochrane NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, the Ryerson International Labour, Occupational Safety and Health Index database, scans of reference lists and researcher’s own literature database. Article selection was conducted independently by two researchers based on title, keywords, and abstract, and if needed, full text. Differences were resolved by a consensus procedure. Articles were selected based on seven criteria addressing study population, type of intervention, comparative intervention, outcome, costs, language and perspective, respectively. Characteristics of the measurement and valuation of health-related productivity were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. Costs of health-related productivity were estimated using (a combination of) data related to sick leave, compensated sick leave, light or modified duty or work presenteeism. Data were collected from different sources (e.g. administrative databases, worker self-report, supervisors) and by different methods (e.g. questionnaires, interviews). Valuation varied in terms of reported time units, composition and source of the corresponding price weights, and whether additional elements, such as replacement costs, were included. Conclusions: Methods for measuring and valuing health-related productivity vary widely, hindering comparability of results and decision-making. We provide suggestions for improvement

Assessing oral health-related quality of life in children and adolescents: a systematic review and standardized comparison of available instruments

OBJECTIVES: To obtain a systematic and standardized evaluation of the current evidence on development process, metric properties, and administration issues of oral health-related quality of life instruments available for children and adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search until October 2016 was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, SciELO, and Cochrane databases. Articles with information regarding the development process, metric properties, and administration issues of pediatric instruments measuring oral health-related quality of life were eligible for inclusion. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument applying the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms. RESULTS: We identified 18 instruments evaluated in 132 articles. From five instruments designed for preschoolers, the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) obtained the highest overall EMPRO score (82.2). Of nine identified for schoolchildren and adolescents, the best rated instrument was the Child Perceptions Questionnaire 11-14 (82.1). Among the four instruments developed for any age, the Family Impact Scale (FIS) obtained the highest scores (80.3). CONCLUSION: The evidence supports the use of the ECOHIS for preschoolers, while the age is a key factor when choosing among the four recommended instruments for schoolchildren and adolescents. Instruments for specific conditions, symptoms, or treatments need further research on metric properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results facilitate decision-making on the correct oral health-related quality of life instrument selection for any certain study purpose and population during the childhood and adolescence life cycle