ArticlePloS one2022
How does the dental benefits act encourage Australian families to seek and utilise oral health services?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'The Letter Says I May or May Not Be Eligible… It Is a Big Doubt and Frustrating:' A Qualitative Study on Barriers and Facilitators to Children's Oral Healthcare From the Perspective of Karen Refugee Parents in Victoria.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Facilitators and Barriers to Oral Healthcare for Women and Children with Low Socioeconomic Status in the United States: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Qualitative document analysis on Iranian contents and trends of population policies: Lessons learned and avenues for future.Heliyon · 2023Article
- The mutual relationship of the policymakers, providers, and the community on the children's oral health; New windows for more discussions.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyse the content of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 as a foundation for the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS) to determine how the Act encourages Australian families to seek and utilise oral health services.
methodsThis was a qualitative narrative document analysis conducted in 2022. Data was collected by searching formal websites for retrieving documents that reported the Australian Dental Benefits Act. The eligibility of the retrieved documents was assessed based on authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaningfulness of the data. A seven-steps procedure was applied for framework analysis.
resultsThe content of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 provides directions on the three categories of operational, collective, and constitutional rules. Operational rules at the level of oral health providers and the population, as the service end users, can be demonstrated as rules in use in a mutual interaction with the collective and constitutional rules. The consequence of governing the rules at the community level can easily define how the oral health services are provided and utilised. The response is sent to the government level for better regulation of oral health service delivery and utilisation. Then, with interaction and advocacy with the diverse range of stakeholders and interdisciplinary partnerships, with community groups, non-government sectors and councils, the rules can be transformed, adopted, monitored, and enforced. Another mechanism of response has occurred at the providers' and users' level and to the operational rules to community groups and stakeholders via advertising and promoting the utilisation and provision of oral health services.
conclusionThis study integrates the perspective of politicians with those of policy makers to reconsider the role and significance of the rules based on the triple collaborations among oral health users and oral service providers, the community, and the stakeholders as well as the government. A comprehensive attention is still needed in future revisions of the Dental Benefits Act 2008 according to the contextual factors, socioeconomic and geographical attributes of the population for better implementation of de facto rules and more effective outcomes of the interventions. It is recommended that further research be undertaken utilising a mix-method approach for a holistic view prior to further revisions of the Act or proposal of probable upcoming schemes.
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.