Search

Background: Oral disorders are still a major global public health challenge, considering their perpetuating and chronic nature. Currently, there is no direct index to measure the quality of care on a population scale. Hence, we aim to propose a new index to measure the quality of care for oral disorders worldwide. Methods: We generated our database using the data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2017. Among different variables such as prevalence, incidence, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years, we utilised principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the component that bears the greatest proportion of information to generate the novel quality of care index (QCI) for oral disorders. Results: Global QCI for oral disorders gradually increased from 1990 to 2017 (from 70.5 to 74.6). No significant gender disparity was observed during this period, and the gender disparity ratio (GDR) was considered optimal in 1990 and 2017. Between 1990 and 2017, the age-standardised QCI for all oral disorders increased in all the SDI regions. The highest QCI for all oral disorders in 2017 belonged to high-middle SDI countries (=80.24), and the lowest YLDs rate was seen in the low SDI quintile. In 1990, the quality of care in European, Central Asian, and Central and South American countries was in the lowest quintiles, whereas the North American, East Asian, Middle Eastern, and some African countries had the highest quality of dental care. Maynmar (=100), Uganda (=92.5), Taiwan (=92.0), China (=92.5), and the United States (=89.2) were the five countries with the highest age-standardised QCI. Nicaragua (=41.3), Belgium (=40.2), Venezuela (=38.4), Sierra Leone (=30.5), and the Gambia (=30.3) were the five countries with the least age-standardised QCI values. Conclusion: The quality of care for all oral disorders showed an increasing trend on a global scale from 1990 to 2017. However, the QCI distribution was not homogenous among various regions. To prevent the exacerbation of imminent disparities in this regard, better attention to total tooth loss in high-income countries and prioritising primary healthcare provision in low-income countries are recommended for oral disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research.Method: A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework.Results: Thirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates.Conclusions: The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]