Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38331748›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Detecting high-risk neighborhoods and socioeconomic determinants for common oral diseases in Germany.

Sebastian Völker, Antje van der Zee-Neuen, Alexander Rinnert, Jessica Hanneken, Tim Johansson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sebastian VölkerData Science Center of Excellence, BFS health finance, Bertelsmann, Dortmund, Germany. sebastian.voelker@meinebfs.de.
Antje van der Zee-NeuenCenter for Physiology, Pathophysiology and Biophysics, Institute for Physiology and Pathophysiology/Gastein Research Institute/Center for Public Health and Healthcare Research, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Alexander RinnertHealthcare & Politics, BFS health finance, Bertelsmann, Dortmund, Germany.
Jessica HannekenHealthcare & Politics, BFS health finance, Bertelsmann, Dortmund, Germany.
Tim JohanssonCenter for Public Health and Healthcare Research, Institute of General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Program Medical Science, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege · DELudwig Boltzmann Institute for Digital Health and Prevention · ATUniversity of Salzburg · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdeally, health services and interventions to improve dental health should be tailored to local target populations. But this is not the standard. Little is known about risk clusters in dental health care and their evaluation based on small-scale, spatial data, particularly among under-represented groups in health surveys. Our study aims to investigate the incidence rates of major oral diseases among privately insured and self-paying individuals in Germany, explore the spatial clustering of these diseases, and evaluate the influence of social determinants on oral disease risk clusters using advanced data analysis techniques, i.e. machine learning.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed to calculate the age- and sex-standardized incidence rate of oral diseases in a study population of privately insured and self-pay patients in Germany who received dental treatment between 2016 and 2021. This was based on anonymized claims data from BFS health finance, Bertelsmann, Dortmund, Germany. The disease history of individuals was recorded and aggregated at the ZIP code 5 level (n = 8871).

resultsStatistically significant, spatially compact clusters and relative risks (RR) of incidence rates were identified. By linking disease and socioeconomic databases on the ZIP-5 level, local risk models for each disease were estimated based on spatial-neighborhood variables using different machine learning models. We found that dental diseases were spatially clustered among privately insured and self-payer patients in Germany. Incidence rates within clusters were significantly elevated compared to incidence rates outside clusters. The relative risks (RR) for a new dental disease in primary risk clusters were min = 1.3 (irreversible pulpitis; 95%-CI = 1.3-1.3) and max = 2.7 (periodontitis; 95%-CI = 2.6-2.8), depending on the disease. Despite some similarity in the importance of variables from machine learning models across different clusters, each cluster is unique and must be treated as such when addressing oral public health threats.

conclusionsOur study analyzed the incidence of major oral diseases in Germany and employed spatial methods to identify and characterize high-risk clusters for targeted interventions. We found that private claims data, combined with a network-based, data-driven approach, can effectively pinpoint areas and factors relevant to oral healthcare, including socioeconomic determinants like income and occupational status. The methodology presented here enables the identification of disease clusters of greatest demand, which would allow implementing more targeted approaches and improve access to quality care where they can have the most impact.

Indexed as

Residence CharacteristicsGermanyHumansIncidenceRetrospective StudiesSocioeconomic FactorsSpatial AnalysisArtificial intelligenceDental healthGeostatisticsIncidence rateMachine learningSocioeconomic determinants of healthSpatial cluster analysis

Identifiers

PMID38331748
PMCPMC11360568
OpenAlexW4391690628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.