An evaluation of the discriminant and predictive validity of relative social disadvantage as screening criteria for priority access to public general dental care, in Australia

BMC Health Services Research

Kelly Jones¹ 

[1]Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health (ARCPOH), Dental School, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

关键词: ROC analysis;    Predictive value;    Oral health;    Social disadvantage;    Priority setting;   

Others  :  1133932
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-106

 received in 2013-02-14, accepted in 2014-02-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Most public dental care services provide preventive, general dental care on a chronological, first come – first served basis. There is concern about lack of transparency, equity and timeliness in access to public dental services across Australia. Using social determinants as screening criteria is a novel approach to triage in dental care and is relatively untested in the literature. The research evaluated the discriminant and predictive validity of relative social disadvantage in prioritising access to public general dental care.

Methods

A consecutive sample of 615 adults seeking general dental care was selected. The validation measure used was clinical assessment of priority. Nine indicators of relative social disadvantage (RSD) were collected: Indigenous status; intellectual disability; physical disability; wheelchair usage; dwelling conditions; serious medical condition; serious medical condition and taking regular medication; hospitalised within 12 months; and, regular medical visits. At the first dental visit, dentists rated care as a priority if treatment was required ≤6 months (PriorityTx) and otherwise non-priority (non-PriorityTx). A standardised dental examination was conducted. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and area under the ROC curve analyses of 1+ of RSD in predicting clinical priority were calculated.

Results

In bivariate analyses, one or more indicators of relative social disadvantage status were significantly associated with PriorityTx (P < 0.001; χ²). In multivariate analyses, one or more indicators of relative social disadvantage persisted as an independent predictor of PriorityTx (OR 3.8, 95% CI = 2.6-5.6). Compared with clinicians’ classification of PriorityTx, one or more indicators of relative social disadvantage had a sensitivity of 77.1%, and specificity of 53.3%, together with a positive predictive value of 81.9% and negative predictive value of 46.0%. ROC curve analysis supported one or more indicators of relative social disadvantage as a predictor of greater priority for access to general dental care (0.66).

Conclusions

Considerable heterogeneity exists among persons seeking public general dental care in New South Wales. RSD performs as a valid predictor of priority for access to treatment and acts as valid screening criteria for triaging priority access to treatment. Such indicators may address issues of inequality in access to general public oral health services.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jones; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]George S, Read S, Westlake L, Fraser-Moodie A, Pritty P, Williams B: Differences in priorities assigned to patients by triage nurses and by consultant physicians in accident and emergency departments. J Epidemiol Community Health 1993, 47(4):312-315.
• [2]Adams P: Clinical priorities. Points make prizes. Health Serv J 1999, 25(109):30-31.
• [3]Feinstein AR: Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on “diagnostic tests”. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56(5):330-332.
• [4]Hadorn DC: Setting priorities on waiting lists: point-count systems as linear models. J Health Serv Res Policy 2003, 8(1):48-54.
• [5]Slevin M, Plant H, Lynch D: Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer 1988, 57:109-112.
• [6]Harris E, Hyde J, Simpson S: NSW Health and Equity Statement. CHETRE: Sydney; 2001.
• [7]Davis P: Culture, inequality and pattern of dental care in New Zealand. Soc Sci Med 1981, 15a:801-805.
• [8]Berkman LF, Kawachi I (Eds): Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
• [9]Commonwealth Department of Health: National Health Strategy (Australia) Enough to Make You Sick. How Income and Environment Affect Health. Melbourne: Research Paper No. 1; 1992.
• [10]Marmot M, Ryff CD, Bumpass LL, Shipley M, Marks NF: Social inequalities in health: Next questions and converging evidence. Soc Sci Med 1997, 44(6):901-910.
• [11]Marmot MG: Tackling health inequalities since the acheson inquiry. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58(4):262-263.
• [12]Marmot M, Wilkinson RG: Psychosocial and material pathways in the relation between income and health: a response to Lynch et al. BMJ 2001, 322(7296):1233-1236.
• [13]Elderton RJ, Nuttall N: Variation among dentists in planning treatment. Br Dent J 1983, 154(7):201-206.
• [14]Coulter A, Ham C (Eds): The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000.
• [15]Altman DG, Royston P: What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000, 19(4):453-473.
• [16]Hadorn DC, Holmes AC: The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: overview. BMJ 1997, 314(7074):131.
• [17]Feinstein A: An analysis of diagnostic reasoning. 3. The construction of clinical algorithms. Yale J Biol Med 1974, 47(1):5-32.
• [18]Slade G: Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997, 25(4):284-290.
• [19]Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD: Internal validation of predictive models: Efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54(8):774-781.
• [20]Lim WS, Lewis S, Macfarlane JT: Severity prediction rules in community acquired pneumonia: a validation study. Thorax 2000, 55(3):219-223.
• [21]StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0. College station. TX: StataCorp LP; 2003.
• [22]Baum F: The New Public Health. An Australian Perspective. 3rd edition. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press; 2000.
• [23]Ransohoff D, Feinstein A: Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978, 299(17):926-930.
• [24]Ransohoff DF: Challenges and opportunities in evaluating diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55(12):1178-1182.
• [25]Phelps C, Hutson A: Estimating diagnostic test accuracy using a ‘fuzzy’ gold standard. Med Decis Mak 1995, 15:44-57.
• [26]Bader J, Shugars D: Variation in dentists’ clinical decisions. J Public Health Dent 1995, 55(3):181-188.
• [27]Bader J, Shugars D: What do we know about how dentists make caries-related treatment decisions? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997, 25(1):97-103.
• [28]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistics notes: validating scales and indexes. BMJ 2002, 324(7337):606-607.
• [29]Walter SD, Irwig L, Glasziou PP: Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52(10):943-951.
• [30]Walter SD, Mitchell A, Southwell D: Use of certainty of opinion data to enhance clinical decision making. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48(7):897-902.
• [31]Hui SL, Zhou XH: Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards. Stat Methods Med Res 1998, 7:354-370.
• [32]Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J: Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002, 324(7338):669-671.
• [33]Reisine S, Locker D: Social, psychological and economic impacts of oral conditions and treatments. 1st edition. Edited by Cohen LK, Gift HC. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1995:33-72.
• [34]Reisine S: Dental disease and work loss. J Dent Res 1984, 63:1158-1161.
• [35]Reisine S: Dental health and public policy: The social impact of dental disease. Am J Public Health 1985, 74:27-30.
• [36]Allen P: Assessment of oral health related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1(1):40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Harrell F: Regression coefficients and scoring rules. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49(7):819.
• [38]Alderson P: Theories in health care and research: The importance of theories in health care. BMJ 1998, 317(7164):1007-1010.
• [39]Marmot M: Inequalities in health. N Engl J Med 2001, 345(2):134-136.
• [40]Atchison K, Dolan T: Development of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index. J Dent Educ 1990, 54:680-687.
• [41]Locker D, Slade G: Association between clinical and subjective indicators of oral health status in an older adult population. Gerodontology 1994, 11:108-114.
• [42]Cohen L (Ed): The emerging field of oral health-related quality of life outcomes research In Measuring Oral Health and Quality of Life. North Carolina: University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Dental Ecology; 1997.
• [43]Cohen L, Jago J: Toward formulation of socio-dental indicators. Int J Health Serv 1976, 6:681-698.
• [44]Knottnerus JA, Leffers P: The influence of referral patterns on the characteristics of diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 1992, 45(10):1143-1154.