Teledentistry from research to practice: a tale of nineteen countries

AimThe COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated teledentistry research with great interest reflected in the increasing number of publications. In many countries, teledentistry programs were established although not much is known about the extent of incorporating teledentistry into practice and healthcare systems. This study aimed to report on policies and strategies related to teledentistry practice as well as barriers and facilitators for this implementation in 19 countries.MethodsData were presented per country about information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure, income level, policies for health information system (HIS), eHealth and telemedicine. Researchers were selected based on their previous publications in teledentistry and were invited to report on the situation in their respective countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong SAR, Iran, Italy, Libya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe.ResultsTen (52.6%) countries were high income, 11 (57.9%) had eHealth policies, 7 (36.8%) had HIS policies and 5 (26.3%) had telehealth policies. Six (31.6%) countries had policies or strategies for teledentistry and no teledentistry programs were reported in two countries. Teledentistry programs were incorporated into the healthcare systems at national (n = 5), intermediate (provincial) (n = 4) and local (n = 8) levels. These programs were established in three countries, piloted in 5 countries and informal in 9 countries.ConclusionDespite the growth in teledentistry research during the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of teledentistry in daily clinical practice is still limited in most countries. Few countries have instituted teledentistry programs at national level. Laws, funding schemes and training are needed to support the incorporation of teledentistry into healthcare systems to institutionalize the practice of teledentistry. Mapping teledentistry practices in other countries and extending services to under-covered populations increases the benefit of teledentistry

The household economic burden of non-communicable diseases in 18 countries

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Background Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. In 2014, the United Nations committed to reducing premature mortality from NCDs, including by reducing the burden of healthcare costs. Since 2014, the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study has been collecting health expenditure data from households with NCDs in 18 countries. Methods Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China. Results The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs. Conclusions Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs

The household economic burden of non-communicable diseases in 18 countries

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Background Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. In 2014, the United Nations committed to reducing premature mortality from NCDs, including by reducing the burden of healthcare costs. Since 2014, the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study has been collecting health expenditure data from households with NCDs in 18 countries. Methods Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China. Results The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs. Conclusions Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs