Abstracts Presented At the EADPH Annual Congress on 13 September 2019

Page Start
Page End


The authors of the first four abstracts competed for the GSK research awards and gave 15 minute
oral presentations they were:

Abstract 4304 Potential cost-effectiveness of oral care in
institutionalized older people: a health-economic evaluation

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium


Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium


Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Science, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Aim: There is need for optimized oral care in institutionalised older people. The aim of this health-economic evaluation was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of different alternatives for preventive and curative oral care in institutionalized older people.
Methods: An age- and gender-specific Markov model was used to compare estimated costs and healthy oral years
(HOYs) arising from four alternatives: (1) usual care; (2) in-house preventive care; (3) in-house preventive care +
curative care in the community; and (4) in-house preventive care + in-house curative care. A healthcare payer perspective was adopted, the time horizon was 10 years, and the setting was Flanders (Belgium). Sensitivity analyses
were performed.
Results: Alternatives 2 and 3 were predominantly dominated by the two other alternatives. Thus, they were not
considered relevant. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of in-house prevention + in-house curation (alternative 4) compared to usual care (alternative 1) was 1,132€ per HOY gained. The probability that an intervention
would be cost-saving, compared to usual care, was less than 5% for all interventions.
Conclusions: Several assumptions based on expert opinion were needed to populate the model. However, based on
these findings it is recommended to adopt a policy which combines preventive and curative oral care, and consider
in-house solutions for oral health care in institutionalized older people. In that case. It should be kept in mind that
large investments are required at the beginning of the intervention, and that - given the older population and the
high costs of oral health care - even in the long term it is unlikely that this intervention will become cost-saving.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Lieven Annemans (Ghent University) for his healtheconomic expertise and Dr. Barbara Janssens (Ghent University) and Prof. Dr. Joke Duyck (KU Leuven) for their
expertise in oral care. The project was funded by “Vlaams Agentschap voor Zorg en Gezondheid (VAZG), (the Flemish
Agency for Care and Health . Grant number AZG/PREV/GE/2016-01)
* Indicates who the presenter was

Editorial correspondence and enquires:

c/o Michael Smith
Editorial Assistant,
80 Towngate Road,
Worral, Sheffield, UK,
S35 0AR
e-mail: [email protected]

Publisher correspondence, enquires and technical support:

Dennis Barber Ltd
5 Battery Green Road
Lowestoft , Suffolk
Tel: +44 1502 511522
Fax: +44 1502 583152
e-mail: [email protected]

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Refund Policy