Search

Objectives: To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF)., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies., Results: A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates., Conclusions: While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF., (Copyright© 2024 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

Introduction: Faculty development (FD) is integral to the implementation of educational programmes. However, attracting new faculty is challenging. Competition is a motivator for learning at an undergraduate level; however, incorporating competition to engage faculty in continued FD has not been explored. In the context of a new strategy to embed in situ simulation in postgraduate education across our healthcare group, and drawing on motivational theory, we asked 'does competition drive engagement in new FD initiatives?', Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine healthcare professionals (HCPs) who had participated in an in situ simulation 'SimStars' competition. Guided by thematic analysis and borrowing from constructivist grounded theory, we explored participants' motivations for entering a competition, their experiences of competition throughout their education and how this process impacted on their engagement in FD., Results: Three overarching concepts arose and challenged our understanding of the role of competition as a motivator: (1) 'Competition is a necessary evil'; (2) 'It really is the taking part that counts'; and (3) 'Teamwork makes the dream work'. In contrast to previously published work, our results suggest participants view competition negatively and as a means to career progression. However, the opportunity to work as part of an (interprofessional) team towards a goal, and to develop a new skill (i.e. the process), was more motivating for participants than 'winning' a competition., Conclusion: Competition may not provide a motivation for HCPs to engage in FD and may be a barrier. Providing collaboration opportunities, faculty coaching and the chance to develop new skills could enhance engagement., (© 2024 The Authors. The Clinical Teacher published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)