The value and cost of different forms of oral health information
Research type
Research Study
Full title
The value and cost of different forms of information on oral health status and risk given to patients following a check-up in dental practice
IRAS ID
152272
Contact name
Rebecca Harris
Contact email
Research summary
Our study looks at the information for patients involving information about what their mouth is like at the time of the check-up and their likelihood of developing future dental decay and gum disease. We propose looking at different ways of delivering this information: in a verbal message; in a paper-based form showing oral health using a traffic light system (e.g. Red=poor health/high risk); and in the form of a digital photograph of their mouth where areas needing attention are highlighted e.g. showing areas of plaque build-up in red (Quantitative Light Fluorescence, QLF). The most recent technological advance (digital photographs using fluoresecence) may be preferred by patients, but may also be the most costly to the NHS. There are equipment and surgery time costs, although the costs of digital photographs are minimal once cameras are purchased since images can be sent by e mail or text. Our study will investigate the balance of the cost and the benefit of these different types of information for patients. In Phase 1 (year 1) we will undertake interviews and observations in 4 NHS dental practices exploring issues around giving information to patients about their dental health. Phase 2 (year 2) will involve 400 patients across the 4 dental practices. Patients will be randomly allocated to 3 arms involving different methods of giving information 1). Just verbally as in usual care; 2). Using the traffic light system; and 3) using a QLF photograph which highlights areas where there is early decay or build up of dental plaque. We will be gathering self-report data on behaviour (sugar consumption and toothbrushing) as well as data on risk perception and willingness-to-pay for different types of information.
REC name
North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/NW/1016
Date of REC Opinion
5 Aug 2014
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion