Dataset Information

Delivery of Preventive Oral Health Services by Rurality: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Integrating oral health care into primary care has been promoted as a strategy to increase delivery of preventive oral health services (POHS) to young children, particularly in rural areas where few dentists practice. Using a multistate sample of Medicaid claims, we examined a child's odds of receiving POHS in a medical office by county rurality. METHODS:We used 2012-2014 Medicaid Analytic extract claims data for 6,275,456 children younger than 6 years in 39 states that allowed Medicaid payment for POHS in medical offices. We used county-level characteristics from the Area Health Resources Files, including a 3-level measure of county rurality. We used logistic regression to estimate a child's odds of receiving POHS in a medical office by county rurality, while controlling for other patient and county characteristics. FINDINGS:POHS in medical offices were received by 7.8% of children. Rates of POHS in medical offices were higher in metropolitan (metro) counties (8.4%) than nonmetro adjacent to metro (5.8%) and nonmetro not adjacent to metro (4.3%). In adjusted analysis, children living in nonmetro not adjacent to metro (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99) and adjacent to metro counties (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59-0.82) were significantly less likely to receive POHS in medical offices than children living in metro counties. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of POHS in medical offices among young Medicaid-enrolled children, we found POHS rates were lowest in nonmetro counties. Given barriers to dental care in rural areas, states should take additional steps beyond allowing Medicaid reimbursement to increase delivery of POHS in medical offices.

SUBMITTER: Geiger CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6298795 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Delivery of Preventive Oral Health Services by Rurality: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Geiger Caroline K CK Kranz Ashley M AM Dick Andrew W AW Duffy Erin E Sorbero Mark M Stein Bradley D BD

The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association 20181207 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Integrating oral health care into primary care has been promoted as a strategy to increase delivery of preventive oral health services (POHS) to young children, particularly in rural areas where few dentists practice. Using a multistate sample of Medicaid claims, we examined a child's odds of receiving POHS in a medical office by county rurality.<h4>Methods</h4>We used 2012-2014 Medicaid Analytic extract claims data for 6,275,456 children younger than 6 years in 39 states that al ...[more]

PMID: 30537073

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study is a scoping review of the different methods used to measure rurality in the health services research (HSR) literature.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2010-2020 from seven leading HSR journals, including the Journal of Rural Health, that used any definition to measure rurality as a part of their analysis. From each study, we identified the geographic unit (e.g., county, zip code) and definition (e.g., Rural Urban Continuum Codes, Rural Urban Commuting Areas) used to classify categories of rurality. We analyzed whether geographic units and definitions used to classify rurality differed by focus area of studies, including costs, quality, and access to care. Lastly, we examined the number of rural categories used by authors to assess rural areas.FindingsIn 103 included studies, five different geographic units and 11 definitions were used to measure rurality. The most common geographic units used to measure rurality were county (n = 59, 57%), which was used most frequently in studies examining cost (n = 12, 75%) and access (n = 33, 57.9%). Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were the most common definition used to measure rurality for studies examining access (n = 13, 22.8%) and quality (n = 10, 44%). The majority of included studies made rural versus urban comparisons (n = 82, 80%) as opposed to focusing on rural populations only (n = 21, 20%). Among studies that compared rural and urban populations, most studies used only one category to identify rural locations (n = 49 of 82 studies, 60%).ConclusionGeographic units and definitions to determine rurality were used inconsistently within and across studies with an HSR focus. This finding may affect how health disparities by rural location are determined and thus how resources and federal funds are allocated. Future research should focus on developing a standardized system to determine under what circumstances researchers should use different geographic units and methods to determine rurality by HSR focus area.

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. DESIGN: Cross sectional, descriptive study. METHODS: An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately. RESULTS: 1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n?=?676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n?=?1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n?=?11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n?=?150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n?=?96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe stakeholder characteristics and perspectives about experiences, challenges and information needs related to the use of environmental scans (ESs).DesignCross-sectional study.Setting and participantsA web-based survey platform was used to disseminate an online survey to stakeholders who had experience with conducting ESs in a health services delivery context (eg, researchers, policy makers, practitioners). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. The survey was disseminated internationally, was available in English and French, and remained open for 6 weeks (15 October to 30 November 2022).AnalysisDescriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and experiences of stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-text questions.ResultsOf 47 participants who responded to the survey, 94% were from Canada, 4% from the USA and 2% from Australia. Respondents represented academic institutions (57%), health agency/government (32%) and non-government organisations or agencies (11%). Three themes were identified: (a) having a sense of value and utility; (b) experiencing uncertainty and confusion; and (c) seeking guidance. The data suggest stakeholders found value and utility in ESs and conducted them for varied purposes including to: (a) enhance knowledge, understanding and learning about the current landscape or state of various features of health services delivery (eg, programmes, practices, policies, services, best practices); (b) expose needs, service barriers, challenges, gaps, threats, opportunities; (c) help guide action for planning, policy and programme development; and (d) inform recommendations and decision-making. Stakeholders also experienced conceptual, methodological and practical barriers when conducting ESs, and expressed a need for methodological guidance delivered through published guidelines, checklists and other means.ConclusionESs have value and utility for addressing health services delivery concerns, but conceptual and methodological challenges exist. Further research is needed to help advance the ES as a distinct design that provides a systematic approach to planning and conducting ESs.

Dataset Information

Delivery of Preventive Oral Health Services by Rurality: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Publications

Delivery of Preventive Oral Health Services by Rurality: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets