James G. Steele

Successful implementation and embedding of new health care practices relies on co-ordinated, collective behaviour of individuals working within the constraints of health care settings. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a theory of implementation that emphasises collective action in explaining, and shaping, the embedding of new practices. To extend the practical utility of NPT for improving implementation success, an instrument (NoMAD) was developed and validated. Descriptive analysis and psychometric testing of an instrument developed by the authors, through an iterative process that included item generation, consensus methods, item appraisal, and cognitive testing. A 46 item questionnaire was tested in 6 sites implementing health related interventions, using paper and online completion. Participants were staff directly involved in working with the interventions. Descriptive analysis and consensus methods were used to remove redundancy, reducing the final tool to 23 items. Data were subject to confirmatory factor analysis which sought to confirm the theoretical structure within the sample. We obtained 831 completed questionnaires, an average response rate of 39% (range: 22–77%). Full completion of items was 50% (n = 413). The confirmatory factor analysis showed the model achieved acceptable fit (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03). Construct validity of the four theoretical constructs of NPT was supported, and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) were as follows: Coherence (4 items, α = 0.71); Collective Action (7 items, α = 0.78); Cognitive Participation (4 items, α = 0.81); Reflexive Monitoring (5 items, α = 0.65). The normalisation scale overall, was highly reliable (20 items, α = 0.89). The NoMAD instrument has good face validity, construct validity and internal consistency, for assessing staff perceptions of factors relevant to embedding interventions that change their work practices. Uses in evaluating and guiding implementation are proposed.

Oral health inequalities associated with socioeconomic status are widely observed but may depend on the way that both oral health and socioeconomic status are measured. Our aim was to investigate inequalities using diverse indicators of oral health and 4 socioeconomic determinants, in the context of age and cohort. Multiple linear or logistic regressions were estimated for 7 oral health measures representing very different outcomes (2 caries prevalence measures, decayed/missing/filled teeth, 6-mm pockets, number of teeth, anterior spaces, and excellent oral health) against 4 socioeconomic measures (income, education, Index of Multiple Deprivation, and occupational social class) for adults aged ≥21 y in the 2009 UK Adult Dental Health Survey data set. Confounders were adjusted and marginal effects calculated. The results showed highly variable relationships for the different combinations of variables and that age group was critical, with different relationships at different ages. There were significant income inequalities in caries prevalence in the youngest age group, marginal effects of 0.10 to 0.18, representing a 10- to 18-percentage point increase in the probability of caries between the wealthiest and every other quintile, but there was not a clear gradient across the quintiles. With number of teeth as an outcome, there were significant income gradients after adjustment in older groups, up to 4.5 teeth (95% confidence interval, 2.2-6.8) between richest and poorest but none for the younger groups. For periodontal disease, income inequalities were mediated by other socioeconomic variables and smoking, while for anterior spaces, the relationships were age dependent and complex. In conclusion, oral health inequalities manifest in different ways in different age groups, representing age and cohort effects. Income sometimes has an independent relationship, but education and area of residence are also contributory. Appropriate choices of measures in relation to age are fundamental if we are to understand and address inequalities.

Pain affecting the face or mouth and lasting longer than three months (“chronic orofacial pain”, COFP) is relatively common in the UK. This study aims to describe and model current care pathways for COFP patients, identify areas where current pathways could be modified, and model whether these changes would improve outcomes for patients and use resources more efficiently. The study takes a prospective operations research approach. A cohort of primary and secondary care COFP patients (n = 240) will be recruited at differing stages of their care in order to follow and analyse their journey through care. The cohort will be followed for two years with data collected at baseline 6, 12, 18, and 24 months on: 1) experiences of the care pathway and its impacts; 2) quality of life; 3) pain; 4) use of health services and costs incurred; 5) illness perceptions. Qualitative in-depth interviews will be used to collect data on patient experiences from a purposive sub-sample of the total cohort (n = 30) at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Four separate appraisal groups (public, patient, clincian, service manager/commissioning) will then be given data from the pathway analysis and asked to determine their priority areas for change. The proposals from appraisal groups will inform an economic modelling exercise. Findings from the economic modelling will be presented as incremental costs, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained. At the end of the modelling a series of recommendations for service change will be available for implementation or further trial if necessary. The recent white paper on health and the report from the NHS Forum identified chronic conditions as priority areas and whilst technology can improve outcomes, so can simple, appropriate and well-defined clinical care pathways. Understanding the opportunity cost related to care pathways benefits the wider NHS. This research develops a method to help design efficient systems built around one condition (COFP), but the principles should be applicable to a wide range of other chronic and long-term conditions.

Delivering appropriate and affordable healthcare is a concern across the globe. As countries grapple with the issue of delivering healthcare with finite resources and populations continue to age, more health-related care services or treatments may become an optional 'extra' to be purchased privately. It is timely to consider how, and to what extent, the individual can act as both a 'patient' and a 'consumer'. In the UK the majority of healthcare treatments are free at the point of delivery. However, increasingly some healthcare treatments are being made available via the private healthcare market. Drawing from insights from healthcare policy and social sciences, this paper uses the exemplar of private dental implant treatment provision in the UK to examine what factors people considered when deciding whether or not to pay for a costly healthcare treatment for a non-fatal condition.

The aim of this study is to develop, apply and evaluate an economics-based framework to assist commissioners in their management of finite resources for local dental services. In April 2006, Primary Care Trusts in England were charged with managing finite dental budgets for the first time, yet several independent reports have since criticised the variability in commissioning skills within these organisations. The study will explore the views of stakeholders (dentists, patients and commissioners) regarding priority setting and the criteria used for decision-making and resource allocation. Two inter-related case studies will explore the dental commissioning and resource allocation processes through the application of a pragmatic economics-based framework known as Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis.

The aim of this study is to examine how clinicians and patients negotiate clinical need and treatment decisions within a context of finite resources. Dental implant treatment is an effective treatment for missing teeth, but is only available via the NHS in some specific clinical circumstances. The majority of people who receive this treatment therefore pay privately, often at substantial cost to themselves. People are used to paying towards dental treatment costs. However, dental implant treatment is much more expensive than existing treatments – such as removable dentures. We know very little about how dentists make decisions about whether to offer such treatments, or what patients consider when deciding whether or not to pay for them.

– Age and loss of teeth can be expected to have a complex relationship with oral health‐related quality of life. This study aimed to explain how age and tooth loss affect the impact of oral health on daily living using the short form, 14‐item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP‐14) on national population samples of dentate adults from the UK (1998 UK Adult Dental Health Survey) and Australia (1999 National Dental Telephone Interview Survey). After correcting for key covariables, increasing age was associated with better mean impact scores in both populations. Those aged 30–49 years in Australia showed the worst (highest) scores. In the UK, those aged under 30 showed the highest scores. In both countries, adults aged 70+ showed much better scores than the rest (P < 0.001). When corrected for age, the independent effect of tooth loss was that the worst scores were found where there were fewer than 17 natural teeth in the UK and fewer than 21 teeth in Australia. People with 25 or more teeth averaged much better scores than all other groups (P < 0.001), although there were differences in pattern between countries. When Australians were analysed by region of birth, the pattern of scores by tooth loss for British/Irish immigrants was strikingly similar to that for the UK sample. First‐generation immigrants from elsewhere showed much worse overall scores and a profoundly different pattern to the Australian‐ and British‐born groups. Age, number of teeth and cultural background are important variables influencing oral health‐related quality of life.