Defense Date

2007

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Department

Pediatric Dentistry

First Advisor

Dr. Tegwyn H. Brickhouse

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine if a co-payment resulted in a differential preference for general anesthesia (GA) or oral sedation (OS) and, if so, to examine whether age, the number of appointments, perceived risks of treatment, child's awareness during treatment, or insurance type appeared to play a role in this preference.Methods: Using a cross-sectional survey design, questionnaires were distributed to caregivers of patients in the waiting room of the Virginia Commonwealth University Pediatric Dental Clinic. Two different questionnaires were distributed randomly. Both surveys described a scenario with the need for dental treatment under general anesthesia (GA) or oral conscious sedation (OS). Seventy five surveys required a $50 co-payment for treatment completed under general anesthesia and the other 75 required the same co-payment for treatment completed under oral conscious sedation. Caregivers were asked to choose treatment modalities as well as to rate factors in their decision making including perceived risks and the number of dental visits. Results: Seventy seven survey respondents selected GA as their preferred treatment option for the described scenario. The other sixty six respondents chose OS sedation. For the insured population, the GA/OS odds ratio for the OS-co-payment group versus the GA-co-payment group was OR=2.21 (95% CI = 1.06, 4.60). In terms of the uninsured, the GA/OS odds ratio for the OS-co-payment group versus the GA-co-payment group was OR=17.5 (95% CI = 1.60, 191). The child's age, awareness during treatment, and type of insurance (public versus private) were not significantly related to treatment choice. The importance of the number of appointments was found to be significant (p-value = 0.0170) and outweighed the effect of the co-payment (p-value = 0.1757). The importance of associated risks was found to be significant (p-value = 0.0171) and this outweighed the effect of the co-payment (p-value = 0.8157).Conclusions: The presence of a co-payment does not as significantly impact the GA versus OS preference while the number of appointments and perceived risks associated with the treatment remain significant.

Rights

© The Author

Is Part Of

VCU University Archives

Is Part Of

VCU Theses and Dissertations

Date of Submission

June 2008

Share

COinS