首页> 外文期刊>Evaluation and program planning >Should we provide oral health training for staff caring for people with intellectual disabilities in community based residential care? A cost-effectiveness analysis
【24h】

Should we provide oral health training for staff caring for people with intellectual disabilities in community based residential care? A cost-effectiveness analysis

机译:我们是否应该为在社区住宿中照顾智障人士的员工提供口腔健康培训?成本效益分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Oral health training is often introduced into community-based residential settings to improve the oral health of people with intellectual disabilities (ID). There is a lack of appropriate evaluation of such programs, leading to difficulty in deciding how best to allocate scarce resources to achieve maximum effect. This article reports an economic analysis of one such oral health program, undertaken as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Firstly, we report a cost-effectiveness analysis of training care-staff compared to no training, using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Effectiveness was measured as change in knowledge, reported behaviors, attitude and self-efficacy, using validated scales (K&BAS). Secondly, we costed training as it was scaled up to include all staffwithin the service provider in question. Data were collected in Dublin, Ireland in 2009. It cost between (sic)7000 and (sic)10,000 more to achieve modest improvement in K&BAS scores among a subsample of 162 care-staff, in comparison to doing nothing. Considering scaled up first round training, it cost between (sic)58,000 and (sic)64,000 to train the whole population of staff, from a combined dental and disability service perspective. Less than 15,00020,000 of this was additional to the cost of doing nothing (incremental cost). From a dental perspective, a further, second training cycle including all staff would cost between 561 and 3484 (capital costs) and 5815 (operating costs) on a two yearly basis. This study indicates that the program was a cost-effective means of improving self-reported measures and possibly oral health, relative to doing nothing. This was mainly due to low cost, rather than the large effect. In this instance, the use of cost effectiveness analysis has produced evidence, which may be more useful to decision makers than that arising from traditional methods of evaluation. There is a need for CEAs of effective interventions to allow comparison between programs. Suggestions to reduce cost are presented. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:经常将口腔健康培训引入以社区为基础的居住环境中,以改善智障人士(ID)的口腔健康。缺乏对此类计划的适当评估,导致难以决定如何最佳分配稀缺资源以实现最大效果。本文报告了一项这样的口腔健康计划的经济分析,作为一项随机对照试验的一部分。首先,我们使用增量成本效益比(ICER)报告了与没有培训相比,培训护理人员的成本效益分析。使用经过验证的量表(K&BAS),以知识,报告的行为,态度和自我效能的变化来衡量有效性。其次,我们扩大了培训的规模,将所有员工纳入了相关服务提供商的内部,使我们付出了成本。数据是2009年在爱尔兰都柏林收集的。与不采取行动相比,在162名护理人员的子样本中,要实现K&BAS分数的适度提高,要多花费(sic)7000至(sic)10,000。考虑到扩大的第一轮培训,从牙科和残障服务的角度来看,培训整个员工的费用在(sic)58,000和(sic)64,000之间。其中不到15,00020,000属于无所作为的成本(增量成本)。从牙科角度来看,包括所有工作人员在内的第二个培训周期每两年将花费561至3484(资本成本)至5815(运营成本)。这项研究表明,与无所事事相比,该计划是一种提高成本效益的手段,可以改善自我报告的措施并可能改善口腔健康。这主要是由于成本低,而不是效果大。在这种情况下,成本效益分析的使用产生了证据,这对决策者而言可能比传统评估方法所产生的证据更有用。需要CEA采取有效干预措施,以便在计划之间进行比较。提出了降低成本的建议。 (C)2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号