The value and cost of different forms of oral health information
| ISRCTN | ISRCTN71242343 |
|---|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN71242343 |
| Protocol serial number | 17265 |
| Sponsor | University of Liverpool |
| Funder | National Institute for Health Research |
- Submission date
- 12/02/2018
- Registration date
- 27/03/2018
- Last edited
- 05/06/2024
- Recruitment status
- No longer recruiting
- Overall study status
- Completed
- Condition category
- Oral Health
Plain English summary of protocol
Background and study aims
A new system of paying NHS dentists in England is being tested which involves putting patients into Traffic Light categories: ‘Red’ is high risk, ‘Amber’ is medium risk, and ‘Green’ is low risk for dental disease. Currently it is not known whether dentists talk to patients about risk, whether patients find Traffic Light risk information useful, or whether this leads to improved behaviours such as toothbrushing. New camera technology (Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence or QLF) is also available which produces vivid images such as highlighting plaque in red. Again, it is not known whether patients appreciate this information and use it to improve brushing. The aim of this study is to find out which form of information on oral health risk patients prefer, and whether there is a difference in how they respond to the information with respect to oral health behaviours such as toothbrushing and dietary habits.
Who can participate?
NHS patients aged 18 and over who are at high/medium (red/amber) risk of poor oral health
What does the study involve?
Participants are randomly allocated to be given either: traffic Light information, QLF photographs or just verbal information by the dentist just after having their check-up. Questionnaire data is collected from patients on tablet PCs, QLF photographs are taken at their next two dental visits, and telephone interviews are undertaken 6 and 12 months later.
What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Not provided at time of registration
Where is the study run from?
Four NHS dental practices in the UK
When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
June 2014 to October 2017
Who is funding the study?
National Institute for Health Research (UK)
Who is the main contact?
Dr Rebecca Harris
Contact information
Public
Department of Health Services Research
Room 113, 1st Floor
Block B, Waterhouse Building
1-5 Brownlow Street
Liverpool
L69 3GL
United Kingdom
 ORCID ID |
0000-0002-5891-6826 |
|---|
Study information
| Primary study design | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Study design | Both; Both; Design type: Process of Care, Other, Qualitative |
| Secondary study design | Randomised controlled trial |
| Study type | Participant information sheet |
| Scientific title | The value and cost of different forms of information on oral health status and risk given to patients following a check-up in dental practice |
| Study objectives | The aim of this study is to describe how patients value and respond to information on their oral health status and risk and to compare the value of three different methods for presenting information on patient's oral health and risk (verbal, paper-based traffic light rating, electronic QLF image) |
| Ethics approval(s) | NRES Committee North West - Liverpool East, 26/06/2014, ref: 14/NW/1016 |
| Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied | Specialty: Oral and dental health, Primary sub-specialty: Other |
| Intervention | The trial was a three arm, parallel group, pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial to test patients preferences and willingness to pay for information in different formats. Additionally, the trial sought to determine whether there were any clinical or behavioural differences between the three information formats being tested. Participants were randomised into one of three trial arms: 1. Verbal Only Condition: This constitutes usual care and involves a dentist providing the patient with risk information based on their individual needs verbally (also providing patients with a card with relevant oral health messages highlighted). 2. Traffic Light presentation plus verbal information: In this condition patients will be categorised according to a pre-determined RAG algorithm: Red (high-risk patient), Amber (medium risk patient) or Green (low risk patient). Patients will receive a coloured card, detailing their categorisation (as well as their RAG categorisation explanation), verbal information, and a card highlighting relevant oral health messages. 3. QLF presentation plus verbal information: In this condition, patients will receive a QLF photograph of their teeth (there are two choices of photograph, with the most salient [chosen by the dentist] being presented: either a photograph which shows mature plaque on the teeth or demineralisation of the teeth). Alongside the photograph (as well as an explanation about their photograph), patients will receive verbal information, and a card highlighting relevant oral health messages. The intervention was given to the patients at visit 1 (V1). There were then two additional practice-based follow ups at around two/three weeks post-intervention (V2, V3) and then around six weeks post intervention. Following this, there were two further telephone follow-up points at 6 and 12 months post-intervention. |
| Intervention type | Other |
| Primary outcome measure(s) |
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) will be used to quantify patient's preferences for the three forms of information. WTP is recognised as representative of how consumers respond to health care decision making. WTP is measured using a contingent valuation approach (a hypothetical scenario used to elicit preferences from participants) collected at the first visit (the patient's dental check-up appointment) |
| Key secondary outcome measure(s) |
1. Clinical communication measured by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), completed by patients after receiving the risk information at V1 |
| Completion date | 31/10/2017 |
Eligibility
| Participant type(s) | Patient |
|---|---|
| Age group | Adult |
| Lower age limit | 18 Years |
| Sex | All |
| Target sample size at registration | 400 |
| Total final enrolment | 412 |
| Key inclusion criteria | 1. Aged ≥18 years 2. High/medium (red/amber) risk of poor oral health 3. NHS patients 4. New patients or regular attenders 5. Any level of literacy |
| Key exclusion criteria | 1. Less than 18 years of age 2. Vulnerable adults |
| Date of first enrolment | 17/08/2015 |
| Date of final enrolment | 05/09/2016 |
Locations
Countries of recruitment
- United Kingdom
Study participating centre
United Kingdom
Results and Publications
| Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to share | No |
|---|---|
| IPD sharing plan summary | Not expected to be made available |
| IPD sharing plan | The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not expected to be made available due to issues with confidentiality and anonymity . |
Study outputs
| Output type | Details | Date created | Date added | Peer reviewed? | Patient-facing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results article | results | 06/01/2020 | 08/01/2020 | Yes | No |
| Results article | 06/01/2020 | 05/06/2024 | Yes | No | |
| Protocol article | 07/05/2018 | 09/08/2022 | Yes | No | |
| HRA research summary | 26/07/2023 | No | No | ||
| Participant information sheet | Participant information sheet | 11/11/2025 | 11/11/2025 | No | Yes |
Editorial Notes
05/06/2024: Publication reference added.
09/08/2022: Publication reference added.
08/01/2020: Publication reference and total final enrolment number added.
