| Literature DB >> 30621709 |
Rejane Christine de Sousa Queiroz1, Ana Graziela Araújo Ribeiro2, Aline Sampieri Tonello3, Ana Carolina Mendes Pinheiro4, José Aquino Júnior5, Thiago Augusto Hernandes Rocha6,7, Núbia Cristina da Silva8,7, Elisa Miranda Costa9, João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci10, Catherine Staton7, Luiz Augusto Facchini11, Erika Bárbara Abreu Fonseca Thomaz12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brazilian Primary Care Facilities (PCF) provide primary care and must offer dental services for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases. According to a logic of promoting equity, PCF should be better structured in less developed places and with higher need for oral health services.Entities:
Keywords: Dental care; Equity; Health services coverage; Human resources in dentistry
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30621709 PMCID: PMC6325759 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-018-0899-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Theoretical model of predictors of the structure of oral health services in the capitals of the Brazilian Federative Units. Outcome: Structure of oral health services
Fig. 2Socioeconomic characterization and distribution of oral health services in Brazilian capitals. 2010
Description of study variables. Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
| N° PCF/100,000 inhabitants | % elderly | % education > than 15 years | GDP per capita (R$) | % population with caries | OHT Coverage (%) | % Dental officea | % Dental instrumentsb | % Dental suppliesc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porto Velho-RO | 9.9 | 5.6 | 70.1 | 28,842.40 | 93.5 | 64.9 | 5.9 | 52.9 | 64.7 |
| Rio Branco-AC | 19.2 | 6.4 | 67.7 | 17,958.00 | 89.9 | 51.3 | 0.0 | 52.4 | 23.8 |
| Manaus-AM | 12.1 | 6.0 | 69.3 | 29,803.80 | 89.4 | 27.8 | 2.1 | 77.9 | 15.7 |
| Boa Vista-RR | 12.1 | 5.2 | 66.5 | 19,653.60 | 90.6 | 27.6 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Belém-PA | 5.2 | 9.3 | 75.7 | 17,451.80 | 89.3 | 16.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.2 |
| Macapá-AP | 11.8 | 5.2 | 65.6 | 17,863.00 | 88.7 | 55.6 | 4.2 | 8.3 | 0.0 |
| Palmas-TO | 13.6 | 4.4 | 68.7 | 20,085.40 | 89.3 | 59.4 | 41.9 | 87.1 | 77.4 |
| São Luís-MA | 4.8 | 7.7 | 74.3 | 21,827.90 | 87.0 | 23.1 | 0.0 | 20.6 | 0.0 |
| Teresina-PI | 9.9 | 8.5 | 74.9 | 16,071.20 | 83.6 | 85.0 | 44.4 | 33.3 | 0.0 |
| Fortaleza-CE | 3.6 | 9.7 | 75.7 | 18,259.40 | 87.5 | 45.3 | 66.7 | 10.0 | 16.7 |
| Natal-RN | 6.5 | 10.4 | 76.7 | 21,608.10 | 86.0 | 50.8 | 0.0 | 23.5 | 8.8 |
| João Pessoa-PB | 20.3 | 10.3 | 75.2 | 18,645.40 | 91.5 | 83.9 | 3.1 | 35.7 | 16.3 |
| Recife-PE | 8.9 | 11.8 | 77.8 | 27,272.80 | 82.9 | 30.8 | 9.1 | 70.2 | 57.0 |
| Maceió-AL | 3.9 | 8.5 | 73.0 | 15,889.20 | 87.2 | 31.2 | 0.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 |
| Aracaju-SE | 7.3 | 9.1 | 75.2 | 21,310.00 | 74.3 | 43.9 | 7.4 | 22.2 | 7.4 |
| Salvador-BA | 3.9 | 9.3 | 77.9 | 17,436.40 | 76.6 | 14.8 | 48.4 | 38.7 | 6.5 |
| Belo Horizonte-BH | 6.1 | 12.6 | 80.1 | 31,004.10 | 78.8 | 47.7 | 74.7 | 45.9 | 56.8 |
| Vitória-ES | 7.8 | 12.0 | 79.2 | 72,975.10 | 77.5 | 56.7 | 36.4 | 95.5 | 86.4 |
| Rio de Janeiro-RJ | 2.8 | 14.9 | 79.2 | 39,405.30 | 79.8 | 25.0 | 14.5 | 85.5 | 68.0 |
| São Paulo-SP | 3.8 | 11.9 | 78.0 | 46,883.00 | 83.5 | 17.3 | 57.1 | 41.3 | 10.8 |
| Curitiba-PR | 5.7 | 11.3 | 78.5 | 39,243.00 | 84.4 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 87.9 | 73.7 |
| Florianópolis-SC | 11,3 | 11.5 | 79.2 | 31,998.90 | 73.3 | 62.0 | 45.5 | 93.2 | 56.8 |
| Porto Alegre-RS | 14.5 | 15.0 | 80.1 | 38,056.80 | 81.3 | 33.6 | 26.6 | 66.4 | 25.8 |
| Campo Grande-MS | 7.2 | 9.9 | 74.8 | 23,796.90 | 86.9 | 42.4 | 2.9 | 61.8 | 11.8 |
| Cuiabá-MT | 11.4 | 8.1 | 75.1 | 28,837.70 | 85.8 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Goiânia-GO | 6.3 | 9.6 | 77.1 | 28,343.10 | 80.6 | 35.6 | 20.3 | 25.4 | 10.2 |
| Brasília-DF | 5.5 | 7.7 | 73.6 | 61,876.10 | 76.9 | 23.5 | 44.6 | 16.1 | 10.7 |
| BRAZIL | 6.0 | 9.3 | 74.8 | 28,607.30 | 84.3 | 41.0 | 21.6 | 46.9 | 30.0 |
aProportion of Primary Health Care Facilities in the municipality who have all the eight types of equipment in the dental office (a room for OHT, dental chair, compressor, delivery systems, stool, reflector, auxiliary unit or assistant’s vacuum group and photopolymerizer)
bProportion of Primary Health Care Facilities in the municipality who have all the eight types if instrument (dycal applicator, dentin brushers, resin insertion trowel, tweezers, mirror, explorer, glass plate and carpule syringe)
cProportion of Primary Health Care Facilities in the municipality who have all the 12 dental restorative supplies (acid and tapes, cotton, local anesthetics, various drills, restorative cement, PPE, fluoride, gauze, temporary restorative material, carbon paper, sealants, resins and box of piercing material)
Model adjustment measures. Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
| Fit Indexes | Model 1 (Outcome: Fully equipped office) | Model 2 (Outcome: Sufficient instruments) | Model 3 (Outcome: Sufficient supplies) | Model 4 (Outcome: All previous outcomes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values | Values | Values | Values | |
| N° of free parameters | 29 | 26 | 26 | 33 |
| Degrees of freedom | 17 | 11 | 11 | 23 |
| X2a | 13.76 | 9.22 | 10.64 | 24.32 |
| 0.684 | 0.322 | 0.474 | 0.387 | |
| RMSEAb | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.040 |
| 90% CIc of RMSEA | 0.000–0.139 | 0.000–0.175 | 0.000–0.197 | 0.000–0.167 |
| CFId | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.987 |
| TLIe | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.997 | 0.982 |
| WRMRf | 0.273 | 0.237 | 0.264 | 0.453 |
aChi-Square Test (reference: lowest value)
bRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation (reference: below 0.05)
cConfidence Interval at 90% (reference: below 0.08)
dComparative Fit Index (reference: below 0.9)
dTucker Lewis Index (reference: above 0.9)
fWeighted Root Mean Square Residual (reference: above 1.0)
Residual variances and coefficients of determination. Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
| Factor/ Variables | Model 1a | Model 2b | Model 3c | Model 4d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Residual variance | R2 | Residual variance | R2 | Residual variance | R2 | Residual variance | |
| SES | ||||||||
| % elderly | 0.677 | 0.323 | 0.651 | 0.349 | 0.622 | 0.378 | 0.628 | 0.372 |
| % education greater than 15 years | 0.894 | 0.106 | 0.844 | 0.156 | 0.810 | 0.190 | 0.791 | 0.209 |
| GDP per capita | 0.349 | 0.651 | 0.420 | 0.580 | 0.434 | 0.566 | 0.512 | 0.488 |
| Geopolitical region | 0.592 | 0.610 | 0.645 | 0.620 | ||||
SES Socioeconomic status, R Coefficient of determination
aOutcome: % PCF w/ fully equipped office
bOutcome: % PCF w/ sufficient instruments
cOutcome: % PCF w/ sufficient supplies
dOutcome: A latent variable constructed from the three previous outcomes
Fig. 3Standard factor loadings in a theoretical model explaining the proportion of fully equipped offices (Model 1) in Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
Fig. 4Standard factor loadings in a theoretical model explaining the proportion of PCF with sufficient dental instruments (Model 2) in the Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
Fig. 5Standard factor loadings in a theoretical model explaining the proportion of PCF with sufficient dental supplies (Model 3) in the Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
Fig. 6Standard factor loadings in a theoretical model explaining the proportion of fully equipped offices (Model 4) in Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
Standardized estimates of total, direct and indirect effects of the predictive model of oral health structure in PHC. Brazilian capitals, 2010–2012
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFLa |
| SFLa |
| SFLa |
| SFLa |
| |
| Caries➔Outcome | ||||||||
| Total effect | −0.645 | 0.053 | 0.209 | 0.316 | 0.331 | 0.102 | 0.219 | 0.316 |
| Direct effect | −0.620 | 0.076 | 0.209 | 0.323 | 0.331 | 0.109 | 0.269 | 0.189 |
| Indirect total effect | −0.025 | 0.803 | < 0.01 | 0.996 | < 0.01 | 0.997 | −0.051 | 0.642 |
| Specific indirect effect | ||||||||
| Caries➔Coverage➔Outcome | −0.025 | 0.803 | < 0.01 | 0.996 | < 0.01 | 0.997 | −0.051 | 0.642 |
| SES➔Outcome | ||||||||
| Total effect | 0.221 | 0.248 | 0.431 | 0.010 | 0.449 | 0.012 | 0.532 | < 0.002 |
| Direct effect | −0.115 | 0.750 | 0.612 | 0.010 | 0.727 | 0.008 | 0.934 | 0.001 |
| Indirect total effect | 0.337 | 0.314 | −0.181 | 0.280 | −0.279 | 0.142 | −0.302 | 0.130 |
| Specific indirect effects | ||||||||
| SES➔Coverage➔Outcome | −0.107 | 0.386 | −0.034 | 0.685 | −0.046 | 0.645 | −0.150 | 0.314 |
| SES➔Caries➔Outcome | 0.426 | 0.155 | −0.147 | 0.327 | −0.233 | 0.147 | −0.187 | 0.199 |
| SES➔Caries➔Coverage➔Outcome | 0.017 | 0.804 | < 0.01 | 0.996 | < 0.01 | 0.997 | 0.035 | 0.646 |
SFL Standard factor loading, SES Socioeconomic status construct
Significant p-value (p ≤ 0.05) in bold
aReference for standard factor loading: small effect < 0,10; Medium – around 0.30; Large > 0.50