Dataset Information

What makes inequality in the area of dental and oral health in developing countries? A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Equity in health is an important consideration for policy makers particularly in low and middle income developing country. The area of oral and dental health is not an exception. This study is conducted to explore the main determinants that make inequality in oral and dental health area in developing countries.

Methods

This was a scoping review applying the framework enhanced by Levac et al. Four databases of Scopus, PubMed, WOS and ProQuest were systematically searched applying to related keywords up to 27.11.2020. There restriction was placed in the English language but not on the study design. All the related studies conducted in the low or middle income developing countries were included. A qualitative thematic analysis was applied for data analysis and a thematic map was presented.

Results

Among 436 articles after excluding duplications, 73 articles were included that the number of publications from Brazil was greater than other developing countries (33.33%). Thematic analysis of the evidence has led to 11 determinants that may result in inequality in oral and dental health services in developing countries including personal characteristics, health status, health needs and health behaviours, social, economic, cultural and environmental factors, as well as insurance, policies and practices and provided related factors.

Conclusion

The policymakers in the low and middle income developing countries should be both aware of the role of inequality determinants and also try to shift the resources to the policies and practises that can improve the condition of population access to oral and dental services the same as comprehensive insurance packages, national surveillance system and fair distribution of dentistry facilities. It is also important to improve the population's health literacy and health behaviour through social media and other suitable mechanisms according to the countries' local contexts.

SUBMITTER: Bastani P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8394054 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe models of academic health science centres (AHSCs) across developing countries, in order to inform AHSC development in Indonesia.DesignScoping review with systematic methods.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, Wiley online library, Scopus and Web of Sciences were searched for relevant publications from 1 January 2015 to 1 December 2020. 'Grey literature' was hand searched by targeted website searches, Google searches, as well as personal communication held with stakeholders in Indonesia specifically. Relevant articles regarding AHSCs in developing countries are included. The review would be synthesised to focus on the purpose, structure and core activities of AHSCs. Strategies for success were also considered.ResultsTwenty-six recognised AHSCs in developing countries were identified, located in Asia (n=13), Europe (n=1), South America (n=7) and Africa (n=5). Innovation, health system improvement and enhancement in academic capacity were the common visions. Most centres are functionally integrated and university-led. Most AHSCs include community health services to complement primary stakeholders such as academic institutions and hospitals. Limited information was identified regarding patient and public involvement and workforce capacity building. Five AHSCs have been piloted in Indonesia since 2018, integrating universities, academic hospitals and provincial health offices. However, information regarding their core activities and successes is limited.ConclusionsThe review suggests that limited published data are available on AHSC models in developing countries, but they still provide important insight into AHSC development in Indonesia. Innovation and health systems strengthening are the common visions. Functional integration with university leadership is the most common model of governance. Other than universities and hospitals, community health centres, research centres and regional health offices are common partners. There is a little description of community engagement and workforce capacity building.

Project description:A lack of evidence exists on the association between area-level income inequality and oral health within Australia. This study examined associations between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes (inadequate dentition (<21 teeth) and poor self-rated oral health) among Australian adults. Variations in the association between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes according to area-level mean income were also assessed. Finally, household-income gradients in oral health outcomes according to area-level income inequality were compared.For the analyses, data on Australian dentate adults (n = 5,165 nested in 435 Local Government Areas (LGAs)) was obtained from the National Dental Telephone Interview Survey-2013. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models with random intercept and fixed slopes were fitted to test associations between area-level income inequality and oral health outcomes, examine variations in associations according to area-level mean income, and examine variations in household-income gradients in outcomes according to area-level income inequality. Covariates included age, sex, LGA-level mean weekly household income, geographic remoteness and household income.LGA-level income inequality was not associated with poor self-rated oral health and inversely associated with inadequate dentition (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.87) after adjusting for covariates. Inverse association between income inequality and inadequate dentition at the individual level was limited to LGAs within the highest tertile of mean weekly household income. Household income gradients in both outcomes showed poorer oral health at lower levels of household income. The household income gradients for inadequate dentition varied according to the LGA-level income inequality.Findings suggest that income inequality at the LGA-level in Australia is not positively associated with poorer oral health outcomes. Inverse association between income inequality and inadequate dentition is likely due to the contextual differences between Australia and other high-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundReducing child mortality was one of the Millennium Development Goals. In the current Sustainable Development Goals era, achieving equity is prioritized as a major aim.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide a comprehensive and updated picture of inequalities in child health intervention coverage and child health outcomes by wealth status, as well as their trends between 2000 and 2014.MethodsUsing data from Demographic Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, we adopted three measures of inequality, including one absolute inequality indicator and two relative inequality indicators, to estimate the level and trends of inequalities in three child health outcome variables and 17 intervention coverages in 88 developing countries.ResultsWhile improvements in child health outcomes and coverage of interventions have been observed between 2000 and 2014, large inequalities remain. There was a high level of variation between countries' progress toward reducing child health inequalities, with some countries significantly improving, some deteriorating, and some remaining statistically unchanged. Among child health interventions, the least equitable one was access to improved sanitation (The absolute difference in coverages between the richest quintile and the poorest quintile reached 49.5% [42.7, 56.2]), followed by access to improved water (34.1% [29.5, 38.6]), and skilled birth attendant (SBA) (34.1% [28.8, 39.4]). The most equitable intervention coverage was insecticide-treated bed net for children (1.0% [-3.9, 5.9]), followed by oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea ((8.0% [5.2, 10.8]), and vitamin A supplement (8.4% [5.1, 11.7]). These findings were robust to various inequality measurements.ConclusionsAlthough child health outcomes and coverage of interventions have improved largely over the study period for almost all wealth quintiles, insufficient progress was made in reducing child health inequalities between the poorest and richest wealth quintiles. Future efforts should focus on reaching the poorest children by increasing investments toward expanding the coverage of interventions in resource-limited settings.