P Srisilapanan1, A Sheiham. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, University of London, London WC1 6BT, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate differences in assessed need using normative and sociodental approaches to assess prosthetic treatment needs of dentate older people. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using non-random sample. SETTING: Metropolitan area of Chiang Mai, Thailand. SUBJECTS: 707 older individuals, 549 of the total sample were dentate, living independently, aged 60 to 74 years. RESULTS: The dentate population examined consisted of 289 classified as 'normal health' and 44 with a nutritional problem. Of the total population, 60% (333) had a normative need for partial dentures. Excluding the 44 with a nutritional problem, 50% (146) of the NTM group had 'impact-related treatment need' and of the latter 146, 69% (102) had a high propensity for health behaviour. 41% of the 102 who had 'impact-related' and 'propensity related treatment need' had 'accessible treatment need'. That is 14.5 per 100 of those with normative need. The gap between normative and 'accessible need' was greater among those with 'general health related treatment need' due to underweight. Of the 44 with a NTM and had a health problem, 45% (20) had a 'propensity related treatment need'. 40% of the group with a 'propensity related treatment need' had 'accessible treatment need'. Overall of the 44 older people with a normative need for a prosthesis and who had a health problem, only 2.4% had 'accessible treatment need' mainly due to lack of finance. If the treatment were subsidised then 45% of those with 'propensity related treatment need' would be eligible for treatment. CONCLUSION: Large differences of estimated treatment need were found between a sociodental and a normative approach to assess prosthetic dental treatment needs of older Thai people.
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate differences in assessed need using normative and sociodental approaches to assess prosthetic treatment needs of dentate older people. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using non-random sample. SETTING: Metropolitan area of Chiang Mai, Thailand. SUBJECTS: 707 older individuals, 549 of the total sample were dentate, living independently, aged 60 to 74 years. RESULTS: The dentate population examined consisted of 289 classified as 'normal health' and 44 with a nutritional problem. Of the total population, 60% (333) had a normative need for partial dentures. Excluding the 44 with a nutritional problem, 50% (146) of the NTM group had 'impact-related treatment need' and of the latter 146, 69% (102) had a high propensity for health behaviour. 41% of the 102 who had 'impact-related' and 'propensity related treatment need' had 'accessible treatment need'. That is 14.5 per 100 of those with normative need. The gap between normative and 'accessible need' was greater among those with 'general health related treatment need' due to underweight. Of the 44 with a NTM and had a health problem, 45% (20) had a 'propensity related treatment need'. 40% of the group with a 'propensity related treatment need' had 'accessible treatment need'. Overall of the 44 older people with a normative need for a prosthesis and who had a health problem, only 2.4% had 'accessible treatment need' mainly due to lack of finance. If the treatment were subsidised then 45% of those with 'propensity related treatment need' would be eligible for treatment. CONCLUSION: Large differences of estimated treatment need were found between a sociodental and a normative approach to assess prosthetic dental treatment needs of older Thai people.