Cost-effectiveness-analysis of oral health remotivation and reinstruction in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized controlled trial

N F Nordblom; K Hertrampf; S Habig; S Gabelmann; P Schlattmann; H Orawa; G Meyer; G Gaßmann; J Abraham; L M Wobst; F Schwendicke

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105520

Cost-effectiveness-analysis of oral health remotivation and reinstruction in nursing homes in a cluster-randomized controlled trial

J Dent. 2024 Dec 13:153:105520. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105520. Online ahead of print.

Authors

N F Nordblom¹, K Hertrampf², S Habig², S Gabelmann², P Schlattmann³, H Orawa³, G Meyer⁴, G Gaßmann⁵, J Abraham⁴, L M Wobst⁴, F Schwendicke⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
² Clinic of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Str. 16, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
³ Institut für Medizinische Statistik, Informatik und Datenwissenschaften, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Germany.
⁴ Institute for Health and Nursing Sciences, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
⁵ PraxisHochschule, University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany.
⁶ Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: falk.schwendicke@med.uni-muenchen.de.

PMID: 39673909
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105520

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a cluster-randomized-controlled trial (cRCT) in 18 German nursing homes (NH) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reinstruction and remotivation of nursing staff by dental assistants (DAs) over 13 months.

Methods: In the intervention arm, dentists examined NH residents, identified oral health conditions, and prescribed individualized oral care interventions. Nursing staff delivered these interventions, with regular follow-up support from DAs (reinstruction and remotivation). In the control group, similar interventions were prescribed via a standardized form, without reinstruction and remotivation (standard of care). The primary outcome was Oral-Health-related Quality-of-Life (OHrQoL) using the Geriatric/General Oral Health Assessment Index (ADD-GOHAI). Secondary outcomes included Health-related Quality-of-Life (HrQoL) using the EQ-5D summary index and caries experience (DMFT index). Costs, including those for staff, materials, and travel, were assessed in Euro 2022. Cost-effectiveness ratios and bootstrapping simulations assessed cost-effectiveness-acceptability at different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Results: Of 358 recruited participants, 68 and 63 in the intervention and control group completed the study. No significant differences existed between groups in demographics or baseline health measures. After 13 months, changes in ADD-GOHAI and DMFT scores were minimal and non-significant, while EQ-5D scores decreased in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Total costs were higher in the intervention arm (median 121.10 Euro) versus the control (median 0 Euro, p < 0.001), mainly due to travel expenses. The intervention increased dental service use but demonstrated lower cost-effectiveness acceptability.

Conclusions: DA-led reinstruction did not improve OHrQoL, negatively impacted HrQoL, and increased costs. Notably, our study was suffering from significant attrition, impacting on statistical power.

Clinical significance: Reinstruction and remotivation by dental assistants did not improve OHrQoL, but generated significant costs, mainly due to an uptake of dental services.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial registration number NCT04140929).

Keywords: Cluster-randomized clinical trial; Health economics; Health services research; Nursing homes; Oral hygiene; Quality of life.

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT04140929