Literature DB >> 12161453

Patient preferences and the measurement of utilities in the evaluation of dental technologies.

S Birch1, A I Ismail.   

Abstract

Advances in life sciences that are predicted in the 21st century will present many challenges for health professionals and policy-makers. The major questions will be how to allocate resources to pay for costs of new technologies and who will best benefit from advances in new diagnostic and treatment methods. We review in this paper the concept of utility and how it can be applied and expanded to provide data to help health professionals make decisions that are preferred by patients and the public at large. Utility is a measure of people's well-being or preferences for outcomes. The measurement of utilities of a new diagnostic technology, for example, can be carried out with the use of simple methods that do not incorporate all of the uncertainties and potential outcomes associated with providing the test, or with more complex methods that can incorporate most uncertainties. This review describes and critiques the different measurement methods of utilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12161453     DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100702

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  16 in total

Review 1.  Normal variants of competence to consent to treatment.

Authors:  Abraham Rudnick; David Roe
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-06

2.  Natural tooth preservation versus extraction and implant placement: patient preferences and analysis of the willingness to pay.

Authors:  D Re; C Ceci; F Cerutti; M Del Fabbro; S Corbella; S Taschieri
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  Patient responses to Er:YAG laser when used for conservative dentistry.

Authors:  Carlo Fornaini; David Riceputi; Laurence Lupi-Pegurier; Jean Paul Rocca
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.161

4.  Cost-effectiveness of anterior implants versus fixed dental prostheses.

Authors:  N U Zitzmann; G Krastl; R Weiger; S Kühl; P Sendi
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.116

5.  Risk-based, 6-monthly and 24-monthly dental check-ups for adults: the INTERVAL three-arm RCT.

Authors:  Jan E Clarkson; Nigel B Pitts; Beatriz Goulao; Dwayne Boyers; Craig R Ramsay; Ruth Floate; Hazel J Braid; Patrick A Fee; Fiona S Ord; Helen V Worthington; Marjon van der Pol; Linda Young; Ruth Freeman; Jill Gouick; Gerald M Humphris; Fiona E Mitchell; Alison M McDonald; John Dt Norrie; Kirsty Sim; Gail Douglas; David Ricketts
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Predictors of treatment preference for mandibular fracture.

Authors:  Claudia Der-Martirosian; Melanie W Gironda; Edward E Black; Thomas R Belin; Kathryn A Atchison
Journal:  J Public Health Dent       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.821

7.  Baseline characteristics and treatment preferences of oral surgery patients.

Authors:  Kathryn A Atchison; Melanie W Gironda; Edward E Black; Stuart Schweitzer; Claudia Der-Martirosian; Alan Felsenfeld; Richard Leathers; Thomas R Belin
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Patients' and Parents' Valuation of Fluoride.

Authors:  Emma G Walshaw; Naeem I Adam; Marina L Palmeiro; Matheus Neves; Christopher R Vernazza
Journal:  Oral Health Prev Dent       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.256

Review 9.  Critical review of willingness to pay for clinical oral health interventions.

Authors:  Sharon Hui Xuan Tan; Christopher R Vernazza; Rahul Nair
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  The management of an endodontically abscessed tooth: patient health state utility, decision-tree and economic analysis.

Authors:  Ben Balevi; Sasha Shepperd
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2007-12-06       Impact factor: 2.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.