Search

The dramatic growth in health expenditures is an important health policy concern worldwide. Therefore, understanding the factors that increase health expenditures provides policy makers with evidence for decision-making. We aim to examine long-term effects of carbon dioxide emission, urbanization rate and GDP per capita on health expenditures. This study investigates the effect of carbon dioxide emission, urban population, and GDP per capita on health expenditure for 21 OECD countries over the period 1992–2018. Panel ARDL Approach and Gengenbach, Urbain and Westerlund Panel Co-integration Test have been used in the article. Test results indicate the long-run relationship among health expenditure and carbon dioxide emission, urban population, and GDP per capita. Effect of carbon dioxide emission (CO2), urban population, and GDP per capita is significant and positive on health expenditure. Rapid economic growths of OECD countries recently and environmental pollution have increased health expenditures in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally. Methods: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire. Results: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty‐three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non‐essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test‐run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test‐re‐test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3–0.7, most p <.0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire. Conclusions: This mixed‐methods approach enabled the development of a multi‐language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]