Academic literature on the topic 'Dental public health Queensland'

Information on public dental service waiting lists is available as part of the Queensland Government open data policy. Data were summarised across the care categories and health districts to present the total number and percentage of people waiting for care and who have waited beyond the desirable period. As of 31 December 2012 there were 130 546 people on the dental waiting list; of these 85.8%, 8.5% and 2.2% were waiting for general care desirable within 24, 12 and 3 months, respectively. Across all care categories, almost 56% of those on the waiting list were beyond the desirable waiting period. The average number of people on the waiting list and the average number waiting beyond the desirable time differ substantially per clinic by district. Ongoing analysis of the Queensland public dental service waiting list database will determine the impact on patient waiting times of Federal Government initiatives announced in 2012 to treat an estimated 400 000 patients on waiting lists nationwide over the next 3 years and to expand services to assist low-income adults to receive dental services.

Information on public dental service waiting lists is available as part of the Queensland Government open data policy. Data were analysed for the period December 2012 to December 2013, to present the total number and percentage of people waiting for care and who have waited beyond the desirable period. Over the 1-year study period, the number of people on the waiting list decreased from 130 546 to 77 146, a difference of 40.9%. A decrease of 80.6% was found for those waiting beyond the desirable period for care. The largest decrease was for general care (44.9%). The initiatives to reduce the public dental waiting list appear to have been successful in significantly reducing the number of people waiting in general and especially those waiting beyond the desirable period. The initiatives to decrease waiting lists represent a downstream approach and are less likely to have any significant impact on the prevention of oral diseases. As waiting lists are reduced, more emphasis should be placed on upstream approaches such as health promotion, specific protection measures and targeting high-risk individuals for oral diseases.

A retrospective analysis of hospitalisation due to oral and dental conditions (ODC) was performed for patients in Queensland. The aim was to identify the rate and cost of hospitalisation and to examine the association between hospitalisation and age, geographical location and Indigenous status. There were 81528 admissions to Queensland’s hospitals due to ODC during the 3-year study period (2011–2013). The annual cost of ODC-related hospitalisation was estimated to be AU$87million. Indigenous infants (Z=4.08, P<0.001) and primary school children (Z=2.01, P=0.046) were significantly more likely to be hospitalised than their non-Indigenous counterparts. A non-Indigenous high school child was almost fourfold more likely to be hospitalised. There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisation for adults. Infants (Z=6.70, P<0.001) and primary school children (Z=8.73, P<0.001) from remote areas were significantly more likely to be hospitalised than their age-matched metropolitan counterparts. Whereas high school children (Z=2.74, P=0.006) and adults (Z=6.02, P<0.001) from remote areas were significantly less likely to be hospitalised. Our findings suggest that there is a need for alternative models of primary dental care to service remote areas of Queensland and Indigenous populations. Strategies that enable Indigenous Health Workers to provide dental care, and the use of teledentistry, are models of care that may reduce potentially preventable hospitalisations and lead to cost savings and better health outcomes.

History is replete with debates between health professionals with concerns about practices and products and others who either challenge scientific evidence or believe that the greatest public good is achieved through maintenance of the status quo. This paper provides a 1950s socio-scientific perspective on a recurring problem for health professionals. It analyses dentists' promotion of oral health by discouraging sugar consumption and the sugar industry's defence of its staple product. Despite scientific evidence in support of its case, the dental profession lacked influence with government and large sections of the Australian community. The division of powers within the Australian Constitution, together with the cause, nature and ubiquity of caries and Australians' tolerance of the disease, were relevant to the outcome. In contrast, the sugar industry was a powerful force. Sugar was a pillar of the Australian and Queensland economies. The industry contributed to the history of Queensland and to Queenslanders' collective psyche, and enjoyed access to centralized authority in decision-making. The timing of the debate was also relevant. Under Prime Minister Robert Menzies, the Australian Government was more concerned with promoting industry and initiative than oral health. This was a one-sided contest. Patterns of food consumption evolve from interactions between availability, culture and choice. Food and associated etiquettes provide far more than health, nutrients and enjoyment. They contribute to economic and social development, national and regional identity and the incidence of disease. The growing, milling and processing of sugarcane and the incorporation of sugar into the Australian diet is a case study that illuminates the interface between health professionals, corporations, society and the state. Today, for a variety of reasons, health professionals recommend limits for daily intake of sugar. Calls for dietary reform are not new and invariably arouse opposition. The issue came to the fore between 1945 and 1960, when dentists contended that the consumption of sugar either caused or contributed to a major health problem, namely dental caries (tooth decay). Representatives of the sugar industry defended their staple product against these claims, which emerged at a critical time for the industry. With hindsight, these exchanges can be seen as a precursor to more diverse and recurring debates relating to contemporary health campaigns. This paper documents and analyses the contemporaneous scientific and socio-political backgrounds underpinning these engagements

Australians are one of the healthiest populations in the world but there is strong evidence that health inequalities exist. Australia has 23.1 million people spread very unevenly over ~20 million square kilometres. This study aimed to apply spatial analysis tools to measure the spatial distribution of fixed adult public dental clinics in the eight metropolitan capital cities of Australia. All population data for metropolitan areas of the eight capital cities were integrated with socioeconomic data and health-service locations, using Geographic Information Systems, and then analysed. The adult population was divided into three subgroups according to age, consisting of 15-year-olds and over (n = 7.2 million), retirees 65 years and over (n = 1.2 million), and the elderly, who were 85 years and over (n = 0.15 million). It was evident that the States fell into two groups; Tasmania, Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia in one cluster, and Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia in the other. In the first group, the average proportion of the population of low socioeconomic status living in metropolitan areas within 2.5 km of a government dental clinic is 13%, while for the other cluster, it is 42%. The clustering remains true at 5 km from the clinics. The first cluster finds that almost half (46%) of the poorest 30% of the population live within 5 km of a government dental clinic. The other cluster of States finds nearly double that proportion (86%). The results from this study indicated that access distances to government dental services differ substantially in metropolitan areas of the major Australian capital cities.

Background Dental caries in children is a major public health problem worldwide, with a multitude of determinants acting upon children to different degrees in different communities. The objective of this study was to determine maternal, environmental, and intraoral indicators of dental caries experience in a sample of 6- to 7-y-old children in South East Queensland, Australia. Methods: A total of 174 mother-child dyads were recruited for this cross-sectional study from the Griffith University Environments for Healthy Living birth cohort study. Maternal education, employment status, and prepregnancy body mass index were maternal indicators, and annual household income was taken as a proxy for environmental indicators. These were collected as baseline data of the study. Clinical data on children’s dental caries experience, saliva characteristics of buffering capacity, stimulated flow rate, and colony-forming units per milliliter of salivary mutans streptococci were collected for the oral health substudy. Univariate analysis was performed with 1-way analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Caries experience was the outcome, which was classified into 4 categories based on the number of carious tooth surfaces. Ordinal logistic regression was used to explore the association of risk indicators with caries experience. Results: Age ( P = 0.021), low salivary buffering capacity ( P = 0.001), reduced levels of salivary flow rate ( P = 0.011), past caries experience ( P = 0.001), low annual household income; <$30,000 (P = 0.050) and <$60,000 (P = 0.033) and maternal employment status ( P = 0.043) were associated with high levels of dental caries. Conclusion These data support the evidence of associations between maternal, environmental, and children’s intraoral characteristics and caries experience among children in a typical Western industrialized country. All of these need to be considered in preventative strategies within families and communities. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by clinicians, epidemiologists, and policy makers to identify children who are at risk of developing dental caries. With consideration of costs for treatment for the disease, this information could be used to plan cost-effective and patient-centered preventive care.

There is that moment at any social gathering when the obviously successful grandee, who was not quick enough to avoid your eye, squints at you and enquires:' And exactly what is it you do?' Luckily there is usually someone more important in their sightline, over your shoulder, so they pass on without listening for a reply. This simple question has caused great consternation in more than one dental public health consultant because although dental public health (DPH) is easily defined, the DPH practitioner is a less coherent entity.