Abstract
There is limited evidence to support optimal patient-centered management for compromised first permanent molars (cFPM) in children. Based on an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), this study elicits UK adult general population preferences and calculates willingness to pay (WTP) for pathways to manage cFPM. The DCE was designed with information from semistructured interviews and literature reviews, as well as focus groups with an expert panel of dentists, citizens, and policy makers. A statistically optimal D-efficient design generated 18 choice tasks, split across 2 blocks. Each respondent answered one block of 9 tasks to reduce survey fatigue. Choice tasks varied across 5 attributes: type of treatment, provider of care, who makes the management decision, number of future visits avoided, and cost. An opt-out was included (no treatment). Conditional logit models (fixed effects) were used for data analysis, and marginal WTP for each attribute level was calculated. An overall 430 respondents completed the DCE. Respondents valued children receiving care as compared with not. Restoring a cFPM was valued equally to spontaneous or orthodontic gap closure. In contrast, having a partial gap, prosthetic replacement with a bridge, or a full unit gap was valued less than restoration or full gap closure. General dentists were preferred to dentists with enhanced skills, but there was no evidence of a preference for general dentists over specialists in pediatric dentistry. Respondents preferred to be wholly or partly involved in the decision-making process as opposed to the dentist making the decision alone. Respondents preferred less costly treatments and the avoidance of future dental work. Dental care service providers must consider service user preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes in any service redesign. Furthermore, the results provide marginal WTP estimates that can be used to value dental care services.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.