Search

Background: Over the past decade, commissioning of primary care dentistry has seen contract currency evolving from payment for units of dental activity (UDAs) towards blended contracts that include key performance indicators such as access, quality and improved health outcome. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate a blended/incentive-driven model of dental service provision. To (1) explore stakeholder perspectives of the new service delivery model; (2) assess the effectiveness of the new service delivery model in reducing the risk of and amount of dental disease and enhancing oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) in patients; and (3) assess cost-effectiveness of the new service delivery model. Methods: Using a mixed-methods approach, the study included three dental practices working under the blended/incentive-driven (incentive) contract and three working under the UDAs (traditional) contract. All were based in West Yorkshire. The qualitative study reports on the meaning of key aspects of the model for three stakeholder groups [lay people (patients and individuals without a dentist), commissioners and the primary care dental teams], with framework analysis of focus group and semistructured interview data. A non-randomised study compared clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment under the two contracts. The primary outcome was gingivitis, measured using bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes included OHQoL and cost-effectiveness. Results: Participants in the qualitative study associated the incentive contract with more access, greater use of skill mix and improved health outcomes. In the quantitative analyses, of 550 participants recruited, 291 attended baseline and follow-up. Given missing data and following quality assurance, 188 were included in the bleeding on probing analysis, 187 in the caries assessment and 210 in the economic analysis. The results were mixed. The primary outcome favoured the incentive practices, whereas the assessment of caries favoured the traditional practices. Incentive practices attracted a higher cost for the service commissioner, but were financially attractive for the dental provider at the practice level. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in OHQoL in both groups were statistically significant. Limitations: The results of the quantitative analysis should be treated with caution given small sample numbers, reservations about the validity of pooling, differential dropout results and data quality issues. Conclusions: A large proportion of people in this study who had access to a dentist did not follow up on oral care. These individuals are more likely to be younger males and have poorer oral health. Although access to dental services was increased, this did not appear to facilitate continued use of services. Future work: Further research is required to understand how best to promote and encourage appropriate dental service attendance, especially among those with a high level of need, to avoid increasing health inequalities, and to assess the financial impact of the contract. For dental practitioners, there are challenges around perceptions about preventative dentistry and use of the risk assessments and care pathways. Changes in skill mix pose further challenges. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Offender health is deemed a priority issue by the Department of Health. Peer support is an established feature of prison life in England and Wales; however, more needs to be known about the effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve health in prison settings. Objectives: The study aimed to synthesise the evidence on peer-based interventions in prison settings by carrying out a systematic review and holding an expert symposium. Review questions were (1) what are the effects of peer-based interventions on prisoner health and the determinants of prisoner health?, (2) what are the positive and negative impacts on health services within prison settings of delivering peer-based interventions?, (3) how do the effects of peer-based approaches compare with those of professionally led approaches? and (4) what are the costs and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions in prison settings? Data sources: For the systematic review, 20 electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and EMBASE were searched from 1985. Grey literature and relevant websites were also searched. To supplement the review findings 58 delegates, representing a variety of organisations, attended an expert symposium, which provided contextual information. Review methods: Two reviewers independently selected studies using the following inclusion criteria: population – prisoners resident in prisons and young offender institutions; intervention – peer-based interventions; comparators: review questions 3 and 4 compared peer-led and professionally led approaches; outcomes – prisoner health or determinants of health, organisational/process outcomes or views of prison populations; study design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods evaluations. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed validity using piloted electronic forms and validity assessment criteria based on published checklists. Results from quantitative studies were combined using narrative summary and meta-analysis when appropriate; results from qualitative studies were combined using thematic synthesis. Results: A total of 15,320 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 57 studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study was included in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. A typology of peer-based interventions was developed. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours and that peer support services provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients; the strongest evidence came from the Listener scheme. Consistent evidence from many predominantly qualitative studies suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects across all intervention types. There was limited evidence about recruitment of peer deliverers. Recurring themes were the importance of prison managerial and staff support for schemes to operate successfully, and risk management. There was little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. An economic model, developed from the results of the effectiveness review, although based on data of variable quality and a number of assumptions, showed the cost-effectiveness of peer-led over professionally led education in prison for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Limitations: The 58 included studies were, on the whole, of poor methodological quality. Conclusions: There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health. Peer support services can also provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. This was confirmed by expert evidence. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse but a limited HIV-specific economic model, although based on a number of assumptions and evidence of variable quality, showed that peer interventions were cost-effective compared with professionally led interventions. Well-designed intervention studies are needed to provide robust evidence including assessing outcomes for the target population, economic analysis of cost-effectiveness and impacts on prison health services. More research is needed to examine issues of reach, utilisation and acceptability from the perspective of recipients and those who choose not to receive peer support. Study registration: This study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002349. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.