Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Periodontol 2000 ; 2024 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38745388

ABSTRACT

This article gives an overview of the societal and economic aspects of periodontitis and periodontal care. Despite its largely preventable nature, periodontitis is highly prevalent worldwide and imposes a substantial health and economic burden on individuals and society as a whole. The worldwide estimated direct treatment costs and productivity losses due to periodontitis (including for periodontitis-related tooth loss) amounted to US$ 186 billion and US$ 142 billion in 2019, respectively. The burden of periodontitis is particularly evident in low and disadvantaged populations. Smoking, dietary habits, and presence of systemic diseases along with social and commercial determinants are considered as risk factors for the periodontal diseases. The cost-effectiveness of preventing and managing periodontitis has been explored in several studies but it has been highlighted that there is scope for improvement in defining the methodology and quality of reporting of such studies. A recent report by The Economist Intelligence Unit examined the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and manage periodontal diseases, suggesting that prevention of periodontitis through prevention of gingivitis by means of individual home care would be more cost-efficient than four other examined approaches. Future research in this field is recommended to further decipher the economic burden of periodontitis to society and to assess the value for money of alternative approaches to address periodontitis with particular emphasis on public health preventive strategies and intersectoral care approaches that address the common risk factors of periodontitis and other non-communicable diseases simultaneously.

2.
Children (Basel) ; 11(3)2024 Mar 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38539356

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Orofacial clefts are one of the most common abnormalities that occur in the orofacial area. Due to their high prevalence, special attention provided to risk factors and their possible involvement in the occurrence of orofacial clefts is of importance. The objective of this study was to review the current global occurrence of orofacial clefts and the possible linkage of previously investigated risk factors to the occurrence of orofacial clefts. REVIEW: The risk factors of orofacial clefts can be classified into two groups, modifiable risk factors and non-modifiable risk factors. Due to the extent of elaboration of each risk factor in each group, this current narrative review is limited to several mostly investigated risk factors, which included a review of parental age, sexual disparities, educational attainment, and income. Studies indicate that Asians are more likely than other races to have orofacial clefts, with a higher incidence rate in men than in women. There is evidence that the age of the parents is associated with the chance of the occurrence of orofacial cleft. The prevention of orofacial clefts and the distribution of medical resources depend heavily on a thorough understanding of epidemiology on a global scale. Nevertheless, the earlier studies concentrated on more developed nations or areas, and registry data from low-income nations had significant gaps. The findings of this narrative review can be used as the scientific basis for further research within this area. CONCLUSION: The occurrence rate of orofacial clefts remains high in several regions. Possible associations between parental age, sexual disparities, educational attainment, and family income to the occurrence of orofacial clefts remain contradictory, indicating the importance of further research to obtain more insights.

3.
BMC Public Health ; 23(1): 986, 2023 05 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37237341

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As part of the Global Strategy on Oral health, the World Health Organization (WHO) is exploring cost-effective interventions for oral health, including taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). To inform this process, this umbrella review aimed to identify the best available estimates pertaining to the impact of SSB taxation on the reduction of sugars intake, and the sugars-caries dose-response, such that estimates of the impact of SSB taxation on averting dental caries in both high (HIC) and low and middle (LMIC) countries be available. METHODS: The questions addressed were: (1) what are the effects of SSB taxation on consumption of SSBs and (2) sugars? (3) What is the effect on caries of decreasing sugars? and (4) what is the likely impact of a 20% volumetric SSB tax on the number of active caries prevented over 10 years? Data sources included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Systematic Review Register, and PROSPERO. The review was conducted with reference to JBI guidelines. The quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR to identify best evidence. RESULTS: From 419 systematic reviews identified for questions 1 & 2, and 103 for question 3, 48 (Questions 1 & 2) and 21 (Question 3) underwent full text screening, yielding 14 and five included reviews respectively. Best available data indicated a 10% tax would reduce SSB intake by 10.0% (95% CI: -5.0, 14.7%) in HIC and by 9% (range -6.0 to 12.0%) in LMIC, and that a 20% tax would reduce free sugars intake on average by 4.0 g/d in LMIC and 4.4 g/d in HIC. Based on best available dose response data, this could reduce the number of teeth with caries per adults (HIC and LMIC) by 0.03 and caries occurrence in children by 2.7% (LMIC) and 2.9% (HIC), over a 10-year period. CONCLUSION: Best available data suggest a 20% volumetric SSB tax would have a modest impact on prevalence and severity of dental caries in both HIC and LMIC.


Subject(s)
Dental Caries , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages , Adult , Child , Humans , Beverages , Dental Caries/epidemiology , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Sugars , Taxes
4.
J Med Econ ; 24(1): 54-60, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33274674

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Following (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were €26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to €26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group. LIMITATIONS: Hospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Enteral Nutrition , Esophagectomy , Health Care Costs , Humans , Postoperative Complications
5.
Neurogastroenterol Motil ; 32(8): e13862, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32400934

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery is associated with postoperative ileus (POI). Despite its widespread manifestation, the influence of POI on recovery, quality of life (QoL), and costs is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the inflammatory processes found in experimental studies are also evident in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In addition, the impact of POI on short and long-term QoL and costs was investigated. METHODS: We analyzed the outcomes of the SANICS-II trial, including prospective evaluation of inflammatory parameters in blood samples, costs from a societal perspective and QoL, using validated questionnaires. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without POI, and in particular patients with POI as unique complication. KEY RESULTS: A total of 265 patients (POI, n = 66 vs non-POI, n = 199) were included and 38/66 had POI as only complication. CRP levels were significantly increased on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2, 3, and 4 in patients with POI. Furthermore, plasma levels of cytokines IL-6, Il-8 and IL-10 were significantly increased the first 2 days after resection. Patients with POI had a higher overall complication rate and a reduced QoL 3 months postoperatively, even in the only POI group. Moreover, mean societal cost per patient with POI was 38%-47% higher at 3 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Supporting findings from experimental studies, inflammatory parameters were increased in patients with only POI and comparable with all patients with POI. These results demonstrate the impact and large contribution of POI in postoperative inflammation, costs and QoL in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.


Subject(s)
Colon/surgery , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Ileus/etiology , Rectum/surgery , Aged , Cost of Illness , Cytokines/blood , Digestive System Surgical Procedures/economics , Female , Humans , Ileus/blood , Ileus/economics , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/economics , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Quality of Life
6.
J Med Econ ; 22(3): 238-244, 2019 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30523724

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The objective of this (trial based) economic evaluation was to assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of perioperative enteral nutrition compared with standard care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alongside the SANICS II randomized controlled trial, global quality-of-life, utilities (measured by EQ-5D-5L), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e. cost per increased global quality-of-life score or quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained) and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were visualized. RESULTS: In total, 265 patients were included in the original trial (n = 132 in the perioperative enteral nutrition group and n = 133 in the standard care group). At 6 months, global quality-of-life (83 vs 83, p = .357) did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean total societal costs for the intervention and standard care groups were €14,673 and €11,974, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance (p = .109). The intervention resulted in an ICER of -€6,276 per point increase in the global quality of life score. The gain in QALY was marginal (0.003), with an additional cost of €2,941, and the ICUR (Incremental cost utility ratio) was estimated at €980,333. LIMITATIONS: The cost elements for all the participating centers reflect the reference prices from the Netherlands. Patient-reported questionnaires may have resulted in recall bias. Sample size was limited by exclusion of patients who did not complete questionnaires for at least at two time points. A power analysis based on costs and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was not performed. The economic impact could not be analyzed at 1 month post-operatively where the effects could potentially be higher. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that perioperative nutrition is not beneficial for the patients in terms of quality-of-life and is not cost-effective.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Surgery/economics , Colorectal Surgery/methods , Enteral Nutrition/economics , Enteral Nutrition/methods , Perioperative Care/economics , Perioperative Care/methods , Cost of Illness , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Double-Blind Method , Health Resources/economics , Health Resources/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Models, Econometric , Netherlands , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life Years
7.
Acta Chir Belg ; 118(5): 299-306, 2018 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29378476

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus (POI) and anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery severely increase healthcare costs and decrease quality of life. This study evaluates the effects of reducing POI and AL via perioperative gum chewing compared to placebo (control) on in-hospital costs, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and assesses cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In patients undergoing elective, open colorectal surgery, changes in HRQoL were assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires and costs were estimated from a hospital perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. RESULTS: In 112 patients, mean costs for ward stay were significantly lower in the gum chewing group when compared to control (€3522 (95% CI €3034-€4010) versus €4893 (95% CI €3843-€5942), respectively, p = .020). No differences were observed in mean overall in-hospital costs, or in mean change in any of the HRQoL scores or utilities. Gum chewing was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to the control in more than 50% of the simulations for both POI and AL. CONCLUSION: Reducing POI and AL via gum chewing reduced costs for ward stay, but did not affect overall in-hospital costs, HRQoL, or mapped utilities. More studies with adequate sample sizes using validated questionnaires at standardized time points are needed.


Subject(s)
Chewing Gum/economics , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Colorectal Surgery/methods , Hospital Costs , Ileus/prevention & control , Quality of Life , Aged , Belgium , Colorectal Neoplasms/economics , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/psychology , Colorectal Surgery/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Elective Surgical Procedures/economics , Elective Surgical Procedures/methods , Elective Surgical Procedures/psychology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/economics , Male , Mastication/physiology , Middle Aged , Postoperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Preoperative Care/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Single-Blind Method , Survival Analysis , Tertiary Care Centers , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...