William Whittaker, Michaela Goodwin, Saima Bashir, Matt Sutton, Richard Emsley, Michael P. Kelly, Martin Tickle, Tanya Walsh, Iain A. Pretty
{"title":"英国坎布里亚郡氟化水计划的经济评估。","authors":"William Whittaker, Michaela Goodwin, Saima Bashir, Matt Sutton, Richard Emsley, Michael P. Kelly, Martin Tickle, Tanya Walsh, Iain A. Pretty","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.12958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The addition of fluoride to community drinking water supplies has been a long-standing public health intervention to improve dental health. However, the evidence of cost-effectiveness in the UK currently lacks a contemporary focus, being limited to a period with higher incidence of caries. A water fluoridation scheme in West Cumbria, United Kingdom, provided a unique opportunity to study the contemporary impact of water fluoridation. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation over a 5–6 years follow-up period in two distinct cohorts: children exposed to water fluoridation in utero and those exposed from the age of 5.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Cost-effectiveness was summarized employing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained). Costs included those from the National Health Service (NHS) and local authority perspective, encompassing capital and running costs of water fluoridation, as well as NHS dental activity. The measure of health benefit was the QALY, with utility determined using the Child Health Utility 9-Dimension questionnaire. To account for uncertainty, estimates of net cost and outcomes were bootstrapped (10 000 bootstraps) to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analysis performed with alternative specifications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 306 participants in the birth cohort (189 and 117 in the non-fluoridated and fluoridated groups, respectively) and 271 in the older school cohort (159 and 112, respectively). In both cohorts, there was evidence of small gains in QALYs for the fluoridated group compared to the non-fluoridated group and reductions in NHS dental service cost that exceeded the cost of fluoridation. For both cohorts and across all sensitivity analyses, there were high probabilities (>62%) of water fluoridation being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This analysis provides current economic evidence that water fluoridation is likely to be cost-effective. The findings contribute valuable contemporary evidence in support of the economic viability of water fluoridation scheme.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cdoe.12958","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluation of a water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria, UK\",\"authors\":\"William Whittaker, Michaela Goodwin, Saima Bashir, Matt Sutton, Richard Emsley, Michael P. Kelly, Martin Tickle, Tanya Walsh, Iain A. Pretty\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cdoe.12958\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The addition of fluoride to community drinking water supplies has been a long-standing public health intervention to improve dental health. However, the evidence of cost-effectiveness in the UK currently lacks a contemporary focus, being limited to a period with higher incidence of caries. A water fluoridation scheme in West Cumbria, United Kingdom, provided a unique opportunity to study the contemporary impact of water fluoridation. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation over a 5–6 years follow-up period in two distinct cohorts: children exposed to water fluoridation in utero and those exposed from the age of 5.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cost-effectiveness was summarized employing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained). Costs included those from the National Health Service (NHS) and local authority perspective, encompassing capital and running costs of water fluoridation, as well as NHS dental activity. The measure of health benefit was the QALY, with utility determined using the Child Health Utility 9-Dimension questionnaire. To account for uncertainty, estimates of net cost and outcomes were bootstrapped (10 000 bootstraps) to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analysis performed with alternative specifications.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were 306 participants in the birth cohort (189 and 117 in the non-fluoridated and fluoridated groups, respectively) and 271 in the older school cohort (159 and 112, respectively). In both cohorts, there was evidence of small gains in QALYs for the fluoridated group compared to the non-fluoridated group and reductions in NHS dental service cost that exceeded the cost of fluoridation. For both cohorts and across all sensitivity analyses, there were high probabilities (>62%) of water fluoridation being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This analysis provides current economic evidence that water fluoridation is likely to be cost-effective. The findings contribute valuable contemporary evidence in support of the economic viability of water fluoridation scheme.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cdoe.12958\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12958\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12958","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic evaluation of a water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria, UK
Objectives
The addition of fluoride to community drinking water supplies has been a long-standing public health intervention to improve dental health. However, the evidence of cost-effectiveness in the UK currently lacks a contemporary focus, being limited to a period with higher incidence of caries. A water fluoridation scheme in West Cumbria, United Kingdom, provided a unique opportunity to study the contemporary impact of water fluoridation. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation over a 5–6 years follow-up period in two distinct cohorts: children exposed to water fluoridation in utero and those exposed from the age of 5.
Methods
Cost-effectiveness was summarized employing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained). Costs included those from the National Health Service (NHS) and local authority perspective, encompassing capital and running costs of water fluoridation, as well as NHS dental activity. The measure of health benefit was the QALY, with utility determined using the Child Health Utility 9-Dimension questionnaire. To account for uncertainty, estimates of net cost and outcomes were bootstrapped (10 000 bootstraps) to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analysis performed with alternative specifications.
Results
There were 306 participants in the birth cohort (189 and 117 in the non-fluoridated and fluoridated groups, respectively) and 271 in the older school cohort (159 and 112, respectively). In both cohorts, there was evidence of small gains in QALYs for the fluoridated group compared to the non-fluoridated group and reductions in NHS dental service cost that exceeded the cost of fluoridation. For both cohorts and across all sensitivity analyses, there were high probabilities (>62%) of water fluoridation being cost-effective with a willingness to pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY.
Conclusions
This analysis provides current economic evidence that water fluoridation is likely to be cost-effective. The findings contribute valuable contemporary evidence in support of the economic viability of water fluoridation scheme.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome.
The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry.
The journal is published bimonthly.