ArticleBMC oral health2025
Guardians' preferences for pit and fissure sealing services in China: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDental caries represents a significant global public health challenge, with particularly high prevalence rates observed among Chinese children. Pit and fissure sealing (PFS) has been established as an effective and cost-efficient preventive intervention, yet service coverage remains suboptimal in China. This study examines guardians' preferences and preference heterogeneity regarding PFS services, with the aim of informing tailored service delivery and policy interventions to enhance PFS uptake.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 411 guardians. Four key attributes were included: preventive effectiveness, preventive service time, distance and out-of-pocket (OOP) service cost. Data were analysed using a mixed logit model, subgroup analyses and scenario analyses were performed to examine preference heterogeneity.
resultsPreventive effectiveness (41.31%) emerged as the most influential attribute, followed by distance (29.23%), OOP service cost (15.85%) and preventive service time (13.61%). Female guardians and guardians of children with poor oral health status placed greater emphasis on preventive effectiveness and distance. In contrast, male guardians were more focused on OOP service cost. Guardians with higher education levels and guardians of children with better oral health status were more inclined to schedule PFS services during vacations. The scenario analysis revealed that guardians prefer PFS services with general effectiveness but higher accessibility and lower OOP costs, rather than those offering superior effectiveness but compromised accessibility and higher financial burden. Notably, medical insurance coverage boosted service uptake from 18.3% to 71.0%, with guardians willing to pay 127 Chinese yuan more for insured services.
conclusionThese findings highlight substantial preference heterogeneity among guardians and underscore the transformative potential of insurance coverage in enhancing service accessibility. Policymakers should consider incorporating PFS services into medical insurance coverage and optimizing service arrangements to meet the needs of different guardian groups in order to improve the coverage and effectiveness of PFS services. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.