Facilitating Access to Dental Care for People Experiencing Homelessness. (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stormon, N.; Sowa, P.M.; Anderson, J.; Ford, P.J.
• Is Part Of: JDR clinical and translational research. Volume 6:Number 4(2021)
• Page Start: 420
• Page End: 429
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: access to health care -- cost effectiveness -- health services research -- vulnerable populations -- dentistry -- healthcare disparities; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dental technology -- Periodicals; Oral medicine -- Periodicals; Dentistry; Dental technology; Oral medicine; Periodicals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/2380084420952350
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2380-0844

Abstract

Introduction: Fear, lack of information, and lower health literacy are prominent barriers preventing people experiencing homelessness from accessing dental services. Most of this population are eligible for free dental treatment in Australia, yet few access care. This study evaluated 3 models for facilitating access to dental services for people experiencing homelessness. Methods: Three facilitated access models were developed and implemented at 4 community organizations. In model 1, dental appointments were booked on the spot after a screening by dental practitioners. Model 2 also involved dental screenings followed by appointments made via phone call from the service. In model 3, the community organizations referred clients directly to the service where appointments were made via a phone call to the client. The models were trialed with community organizations between 2017 and 2019. For each model, participant demographic information, attendance at subsequent dental appointments, and program operation resource use were collected. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as an incremental cost per additional person attending a dental appointment. Results: A total of 76 people participated in model 1, 66 in model 2, and 43 in model 3. Model 1 was the most effective, leading to 84.2 (confidence interval, 75.8–92.7) of every 100 participants attending a dental appointment. Model 2 had a lower effectiveness of 56.1 (44.6–67.6), and model 3 was the least effective, with a mean of 29.3 (15.0–43.6) per 100 participants attending. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $51 per additional person attending a dental appointment for model 3 (compared to no strategy) and $173 per additional person attending for model 1 (compared to model 3). Conclusions: Model 3 was the most cost-effective strategy of increasing access to dental care for people experiencing homelessness. Decision makers who find the effectiveness of model 3 insufficient should look instead to employ model 1 or a combination of these 2 models. The importance of face-to-face engagement to foster trust between the individual and health care practitioner was evident. Knowledge transfer statement: This study provides a range of models for dental and community services to facilitate access to dental care for people experiencing homelessness. Decision makers should consider the needs of vulnerable populations, alternative model designs, and their cost-effectiveness when implementing models of facilitated access to dental care. Face-to-face engagement between clients and dental practitioners by inclusion of a screening stage appears to be instrumental in overcoming barriers to access clinical care.