AIM: To determine if the school dental screening program in New South Wales, the School Assessment Program, achieved its aim of being the key entry point for high-risk children to receive care. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on epidemiological data gathered in 16 primary schools in New South Wales (10 for the School Assessment Program and six for the non-School Assessment Program) in 2003. The validity of the School Assessment Program targeting criteria in identifying high-risk schools was determined. Post-screening treatment outcomes were evaluated from the assessment of treatment ratios. RESULTS: There were negligible differences in the caries experience and proportions of high-risk children, irrespective of their School Assessment Program status. Sensitivity and specificity values were approximately 60% and 40%, respectively, using various case definitions of high risk applied to both children and schools. Deciduous dentition treatment ratios for School Assessment Program and non-School Assessment Program children with decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft) ≥1 ranged from 0.48 to 0.79 and from 0.47 to 0.73, respectively. Respective permanent dentition treatment ratios for School Assessment Program and non-School Assessment Program children with Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) ≥1 were 0.49-0.82 and 0.64-1.08. CONCLUSION: The School Assessment Program failed to identify schools with high caries-risk children or confer post-screening caries treatment benefits.
AIM: To determine if the school dental screening program in New South Wales, the School Assessment Program, achieved its aim of being the key entry point for high-risk children to receive care. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted on epidemiological data gathered in 16 primary schools in New South Wales (10 for the School Assessment Program and six for the non-School Assessment Program) in 2003. The validity of the School Assessment Program targeting criteria in identifying high-risk schools was determined. Post-screening treatment outcomes were evaluated from the assessment of treatment ratios. RESULTS: There were negligible differences in the caries experience and proportions of high-risk children, irrespective of their School Assessment Program status. Sensitivity and specificity values were approximately 60% and 40%, respectively, using various case definitions of high risk applied to both children and schools. Deciduous dentition treatment ratios for School Assessment Program and non-School Assessment Program children with decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft) ≥1 ranged from 0.48 to 0.79 and from 0.47 to 0.73, respectively. Respective permanent dentition treatment ratios for School Assessment Program and non-School Assessment Program children with Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) ≥1 were 0.49-0.82 and 0.64-1.08. CONCLUSION: The School Assessment Program failed to identify schools with high caries-risk children or confer post-screening caries treatment benefits.