JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Dent Educ. 53(11): 646-657 1989
© 1989 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, B.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by White, B.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, M.
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 53, Issue 11, 646-657
Copyright © 1989 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

Issues in the economic evaluation of community water fluoridation

BA White, AA Antczak-Bouckoms, and MC Weinstein

Community water fluoridation has long been recognized as an effective public health intervention in the prevention of dental caries. The recently documented secular decline in dental caries, however, presents for policy makers the challenge of appropriately allocating limited health care resources between a variety of health care programs. Appropriate economic assessment of these alternatives becomes critical for rational distribution of such resources. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses are techniques that, when used correctly, can guide policy makers facing such decisions. This paper reviews and critiques the published literature assessing the cost effectiveness and cost benefit of community water fluoridation using criteria developed for economic evaluation. Eight papers met the criteria for inclusion in the present study. In general, the articles failed to incorporate the declining prevalence of dental caries into their analyses and to fully document costs associated with water fluoridation. Treatment savings from dental care averted secondary to water fluoridation were not appropriately incorporated into the cost-effectiveness analyses, thereby overestimating the marginal cost associated with fluoridation. Specification of outcome measures to assess the consequences of water fluoridation failed to incorporate the dynamic nature of dental disease. Suggestions for improving the generalizability and usefulness of future cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses are made.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Dental Education Association.