Cost Effectiveness of a School Dental Sealant Program for Access Improvement Among Children in Southern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a hospital-based dental clinic versus a mobile dental clinic for a school dental sealant program in southern Thailand.The expenditure approach was conventional and included labor costs, material costs and capital costs.Effectiveness was assessed as the number of caries-free teeth at six months after sealant in both types of clinic.One-way sensitivity analysis was performed based on the percentage of caries-free teeth at two years after program initiation.The results showed that the global cost-effectiveness ratio for a mobile dental clinic was less costly per caries-free tooth, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was approximately 1.4 US dollars per caries-free tooth.The reasons to support decision making for added resources to bolster worth and effectiveness of a mobile dental clinic were opportunity costs of parents, prevalence of caries on occlusal and the inequity of oral health care among children in certain areas.In conclusion, the cost effectiveness existent in this circumstance makes the mobile dental clinic an interesting choice to increase children's accessibility to preventive dental service.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".