Ohio dental care providers' treatment of young children, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Adequate access to dental care for young children--particularly those from low-income families--is a public concern. The authors conducted a survey of Ohio dental care providers to examine factors influencing their willingness to care for these children. METHODS: Random samples of Ohio general practitioner (GPs) dentists and pediatric dentists (PDs) and all Ohio safety-net dental clinics completed a mail survey regarding treatment of children aged 0 through 5 years. The authors categorized responses by provider type and further analyzed GPs' responses by years since graduation and geographic character. RESULTS: Few Ohio GPs (8 percent) recommended a first dental visit by 1 year of age. While 91 percent of GPs treated children aged 3 through 5 years, only 34 percent treated children aged 0 through 2 years, most often for emergency visits or examinations. Only 7 percent of all GPs and 29 percent of PDs accepted patients enrolled in Medicaid without limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Children's being young (0-2 years of age) and having Medicaid as a payment source made GPs substantially less likely to treat them. Children's being enrolled in Head Start made GPs somewhat more likely to treat them. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New strategies for ensuring dental care access for young children from low-income families are necessary. Such strategies may take the form of interpeer advocacy, education, practice incentives or creation of coordinated GP and PD teams.

Parent or caregiver, staff, and dentist perspectives on access to dental care issues for head start children in Ohio.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted 5 surveys on consumer and provider perspectives on access to dental care for Ohio Head Start children to assess the need and appropriate strategies for action. METHODS: We collected information from Head Start children (open-mouth screenings), their parents or caregivers (questionnaire and telephone interviews), Head Start staff (interviews), and dentists (questionnaire). Geocoded addresses were also analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of Head Start children had at least 1 decayed tooth. For the 11% of parents whose children could not get desired dental care, cost of care or lack of insurance (34%) and dental office factors (20%) were primary factors. Only 7% of general dentists and 29% of pediatric dentists reported accepting children aged 0 through 5 years of age as Medicaid recipients without limitation. Head Start staff and dentists felt that poor appointment attendance negatively affected children's receiving care, but parents/caregivers said finding accessible dentists was the major problem. CONCLUSIONS: Many Ohio Head Start children do not receive dental care. Medicaid and patient age were primary dental office limitations that are partly offset by the role Head Start plays in ensuring dental care. Dentists, Head Start staff, and parents/caregivers have different perspectives on the problem of access to dental care.