ArticleBMJ open2021
Economic evaluation of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service programme in Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of community and primary-care-based maternal oral health interventions on pregnancy and infant outcomes: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers regarding oral healthcare during pregnancy: a cross-sectional study among obstetricians in Guangxi, China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Discounting Practices in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Studies Published After 2020.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Review
- Oral health educational interventions for pharmacists and pharmacy staff: A scoping review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
- Costs in dental care: a scoping review of methodologies and trends.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis in dental medicine: a systematic review with a focus on affordability and risk-aversion.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Review
- Exploring Oral Health Promotion Among Mental Health Providers: An Integrative Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Review
- Article
- Oral health and individuals with a lived experience of an eating disorder: a qualitative study.Journal of eating disorders · 2023Article
- Dietitians' Experiences of Providing Oral Health Promotion to Clients with an Eating Disorder: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Aboriginal Health Workers Promoting Oral Health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women during Pregnancy: Development and Pilot Testing of the Grinnin' Up Mums & Bubs Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Oral Health Care Among Women in Perimenopause or Menopause: An Integrative Review.Journal of midwifery & women's healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo critically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service (MIOH-DS) designed to improve oral health of pregnant Australian women. Previous efficacy and process evaluations of MIOH-DS showed positive outcomes and improvements across various measures. DESIGN AND
settingThe evaluation used a cost-utility model based on the initial study design of the MIOH-DS trial in Sydney, Australia from the perspective of public healthcare provider for a duration of 3 months to 4 years.
participantsData were sourced from pregnant women (n=638), midwives (n=17) and dentists (n=3) involved in the MIOH trial and long-term follow-up. COST MEASURES: Data included in analysis were the cost of the time required by midwives and dentists to deliver the intervention and the cost of dental treatment provided. Costs were measured using data on utilisation and unit price of intervention components and obtained from a micro-costing approach. OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was measured as the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from health-benefit components of the intervention. Three cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken using different comparators, thresholds and time scenarios.
resultsCompared with current practice, midwives only intervention meets the Australian threshold (A$50 000) of being cost-effective. The midwives and accessible/affordable dentists joint intervention was only 'cost-effective' in 6 months or beyond scenarios. When the midwife only intervention is the comparator, the midwife/dentist programme was 'cost-effective' in all scenarios except at 3 months scenario.
conclusionsThe midwives' only intervention providing oral health education, assessment and referral to existing dental services was cost-effective, and represents a low cost intervention. Midwives' and dentists' combined interventions were cost-effective when the benefits were considered over longer periods. The findings highlight short and long term economic benefits of the programme and support the need for policymakers to consider adding an oral health component into antenatal care Australia wide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001271897; Post-results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.