Next Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Older Adults in Rural Areas: Oral Dryness and Oral Health Knowledge and Behavior
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Most Stressful Dental Treatment Procedures of Conservative Dentistry among Polish Dental Students
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Quality of Care Service of Caregivers for Preschoolers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of a Preventive Oral Health Program Starting during Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study Comparing Immigrant and Native Women and Their Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph18084294
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Investigation of the Association between Health Screening and Dental Scaling in Korea

by
Bo-Mi Shin
1,
Jung-Sun Heo
2 and
Jae-In Ryu
3,*
1
Department of Dental Hygiene, College of Dentistry, Gangneung Wonju National University, Gangneung-si 25457, Korea
2
Department of Maxillofacial Biomedical Engineering and Institute of Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea
3
Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(8), 4294; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18084294
Submission received: 21 March 2021 / Revised: 11 April 2021 / Accepted: 14 April 2021 / Published: 18 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Oral and Public Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dental disease is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide, and its expenditure is continuously increasing. Periodontal disease is increasing as a chronic non-communicable disease in adults and older people. Health screening has been shown to be cost-effective and improves the quality of life through the early detection of diseases. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between national health screening and dental scaling as a preventive service for periodontal disease. The study used sample cohort data from 2002 to 2015 provided by the National Health Insurance Sharing Service in South Korea. A logistic regression analysis of the utilization of dental scaling was performed to identify the independent effects of national health screening. People who underwent health screening showed a higher tendency to undergo dental scaling. Additionally, disparities in utilization according to socioeconomic status were reduced among those who underwent screening. The intervention to extend dental coverage could be more beneficial when combined with health screening, encouraging more people to participate and reducing inequalities in utilization.

1. Introduction

According to the Global Burden of Disease study, oral health has not improved over the past 25 years. The number of people with untreated oral diseases increased from 2.5 billion in 1990 to 3.5 billion in 2015 [1]. The direct treatment cost for oral diseases was estimated to be $290 billion [2], and dental expenditure accounts for the third highest proportion of health expenditures in the European Union [3]. In South Korea, the national dental expenditure amounted to KRW 4.6 trillion in 2019, an 18% increase compared to the previous year [4]. The relatively high rate of out-of-pocket payments, 57.5% for dental hospitals and 48.1% for dental clinics, within this expenditure, imposed an economic burden [5]. Periodontal disease is increasing as a chronic non-communicable disease in adults and older people [6,7,8]. Preventive and nonsurgical treatments are necessary before it develops as a severe disease [9,10]. Despite this need, barriers due to financial difficulties decrease the visibility of preventive services [11,12]. In this case, the reimbursement policy would be highly effective in eliminating this obstacle [13,14], affecting both the user and provider [15,16]. The percentage of people needing dental scaling was 66.3% in 2010 in Korea [17]. Since 2013, the government has implemented a coverage plan for annual dental scaling of the full mouth in adults. The National Health Insurance (NHI) covers healthcare services related to preventive treatment, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, injuries, childbirth, and death [18]. The payment is based on a fee-for-service system that contributes to a third-party NHI corporation. Dental scaling service was permitted once a year as a supragingival approach to prevent periodontal disease and to treat early periodontitis [19,20].
After the policy, the number of people using dental scaling increased [21], and the number of people with healthy periodontal conditions increased as well [22]. However, there were socioeconomic inequalities [23], and some argued that it became severe after the policy that included dental scaling in the NHI [24]. With the implementation of this policy, the utilization rate increased in total, but the gap between socioeconomic groups increased. Universal access with universal dental coverage did not guarantee a decrease in the gap based on socioeconomic status. This might indicate that financial difficulty is not the only reason for not using dental care, especially preventive services. Diverse factors such as the patient’s socioeconomic status, educational level, and the way to provide intervention are crucial [25]. A pilot study was conducted in Korea, involving a registered dentist program. It provides preventive dental services to children by coordinating with compulsory annual oral examinations [26]. The participants showed a higher rate of using preventive dental services [27], and children from low-income groups experienced a decrease in the rate of dental visits for treatment [28,29]. This proved that preventive services could be effectively delivered after being combined with screening or examination in the whole or targeted population.
Health screening contributes to the early detection and treatment of diseases, thereby reducing the burden of medical expenditure and improving the quality of life and health status. National health screening was introduced in 1980 in South Korea and is now offered free of charge to all ages over one year of age. Health check-ups with oral examinations consist of health examinations, consultations, and education at nationally designated check-up institutions [30]. Recently, the World Health Organization suggested an extended concept of health examination that encompasses all steps of services in the process of linking health screening to disease management, including diagnosis and treatment [31]. South Korea also defined the purpose of health examination as the prevention and management of diseases following the Framework Act on Health Examinations. A follow-up system was introduced to encompass the scope of disease management. Extended health screening might increase accessibility and attenuate inequalities by combining with preventive services.
This study aimed to analyze the relationship between national health screening and dental scaling using the NHI data in South Korea.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

This study used sample cohort data from 2002 to 2015 provided by the National Health Insurance Sharing Service (NHISS) in Korea [32]. This cohort was the data standardized in a shareable form by extracting the sample to reduce limited access due to the large size and personally identifiable information issues. It allows the long-term observation of the same individuals as a cohort and connects qualification data, including socioeconomic variables (location of residence, month and date of death, cause of death, income rank, etc.) to treatment, medical check-up, and the clinic to enable the analysis of a causal or temporal relationship. This sample cohort included approximately one million qualified individuals extracted from Medicare recipients and NHI subscribers in 2006, which is 2% of the total population.
The study population included adults who were in the cohort between 2014 and 2015. Most insured patients receive medical check-ups every two years, but manual workers do this every year in Korea. Among the double records within two years, the first year was prioritized. Finally, the total number of study subjects was 851,792, with a single record per ID. This study was granted an exemption from the Institutional Review Board designated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in South Korea (P01-201907-21-033).

2.2. Study Variable

Dental scaling was selected as the dependent variable in this study. The independent variables were sex, age, administrative districts, type of subscription, income quintile, disability, and national health screening. The type of subscription was classified as Medicare and health insurance, such as self-employed or employees. The income quantile was analyzed separately according to the type of subscription, because these had different contribution systems. Disability categorizes people with registration by social security. The subjects who received national health screening were the study group and those who did not were controls in this study.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The utilization of dental scaling was examined using the chi-square test, according to independent variables. A logistic regression analysis of the utilization of dental scaling was performed to identify the independent effects of national health screening. The results are presented after separation by the study and control groups. The variables were included in a step-by-step analysis to evaluate the effects of the dependent variable. The study samples were analyzed as Model 1, adjusted for sex and age group; Model 2, adjusted for sex, age, and city level; Model 3, adjusted for sex, age, city, and disability; Model 4, adjusted for sex, age, city, disability, and insurance type or income quintile; and Model 5, adjusted for sex, age, city, disability, insurance type, income quintile, and health screening. The variables that were significant at a p-value < 0.05, were determined to significantly affect the dependent variable of dental scaling utilization. Data analysis was performed using the STATA version 15.1 statistical software package (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

There were 851,792 participants in the study cohort (Table 1). The proportion of male and female patients was similar in the study population. Slightly more than half of the participants lived in the province (53.9%). There were very few fragile people with disabilities or Medicaid (6.0% and 2.7%, respectively). Almost two-thirds of the participants were employees and their dependents. Both self-employed and employee groups had more people in higher-income quintiles. Half of the participants underwent general medical check-ups. A larger proportion of participants who were the youngest or the oldest, disabled, on Medicaid, or worse off did not undergo health screening (p < 0.001).
The utilization rate of dental scaling was 27.2% (Table 2). There were significant differences in all sociodemographic dependent variables for the use of this service (all p < 0.001). Participants who were female, younger, living in a metropolitan city, without disability, or an employee, had a higher income, or underwent national health screening showed a higher opportunity to experience dental scaling.
Significant differences in dental scaling by national health screening were observed even after adjusting for all the sociodemographic variables in Table 3, according to the logistic regression model (p < 0.001). The experience of screening increased the chance of dental scaling by as much as 1.63 times compared to people who did not. The youngest people showed a four-fold higher tendency to undergo dental scaling than the older ones. The self-employed and employees had a difference compared to the Medicaid beneficiaries, with a 1.36 to 1.70 times higher chance of experiencing the treatment. Women, dwellers in the metropolitan city area, or people without disabilities had a higher chance of receiving dental scaling in the fully adjusted model.
Table 4 separates the participants into groups based on their experience with the national health screening program and insurance type. The gaps were larger in the group without health screening, based on all independent variables. In particular, dental scaling ratios were the highest in the youngest group without health screening, even in a fully adjusted model. The scale of inequality by income quintile was larger in the self-employed group, and the richest group showed a 1.91 times higher chance of dental scaling than the poorest group. It was lower in the employee group, and the pattern was U-shaped with a long end in the higher quintiles.

4. Discussion

This study showed that the likelihood of dental scaling was higher in the group of people who participated in the national health screening program. The gap in sociodemographic information was larger in the group of people without a health screening.
Health screening is a critical factor in dental scaling. Health screening is a service that prevents disease severity through early diagnosis. A 10-year follow-up of the United Kingdom Multicenter Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) investigated the effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound screening on mortality, demonstrating that the mortality was decreased in the group invited for screening. The screening resulted in a 45% relative risk reduction in this study [33]. Studies that have examined the effects of health screening and used simulation models to evaluate the economic feasibility have also shown cost-effectiveness [34], and support that it improves the quality of life through the early detection of diseases [35]. This improvement might be due to a higher tendency to make healthier decisions among people who received the screening. Moreover, the diagnosis could lead to a healthier behavior [36,37,38,39]. Medical or dental professionals examine the patients and explain the diagnosis, playing an important role in encouraging patients to have the necessary treatment and to make healthier choices [40,41]. Further, medical professionals can do this for dental care by recommending proper dental services for children and their families [42]. The diagnosis would promote patient participation, and suggestions from professionals can encourage them to seek preventive services.
The disparities in the utilization of dental scaling according to demographics were more severe in those who did not undergo health screening. A British study also revealed that education and social hierarchy were significantly associated with the tendency to use treatments or preventive dental services, even in countries with equitable access [43,44,45]. Disability is another barrier to accessibility for dental care in children [46,47] and adults [48,49]. Sex showed a significant relationship with the utilization of dental services; females had a higher tendency to use dental services than males [50,51,52,53]. Rural areas with a lack of service utility and personnel also have access limitations [54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. However, interventions for children with registered dentist programs did not show significant inequalities based on these factors [61]. This project provided preventive dental services under compulsory oral examinations, in which all the students were required to visit dental clinics. The participants showed a higher rate of use of preventive dental services, and the gap by income quintiles disappeared. Another project, the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation, WISEWOMAN, was implemented to target low-income, under, or uninsured women [62]. Middle-aged participants underwent screening to reduce the risk of heart disease and an intervention to eat healthy, increase physical activity, and quit smoking. Many researchers have shown that it causes behavioral changes and clinical improvement [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. Interventions might be necessary to connect with screening, in which people can identify their status and be motivated to use preventive services from the advice of reliable professionals.
There was a larger age gap in people without a health screening. The youngest group had a five-fold higher probability of using dental scaling. Similar results have been reported in other studies of the rate of dental scaling [23,72,73]. Even after dental insurance with a coverage extension that induced a change in utilization, the absolute rate decreased with age [21,74]. A study from England showed that health check attendees decreased with age in both the underserved and general populations [75]. In addition, the utilization ratio was lower in the Taiwanese elderly with disabilities, where dental scaling services were free of charge every six months [76]. This might be related to the edentulous condition, which was 8.7% among adults over 70 years in Korea [77]. However, the average number of natural teeth was 16.9, indicating that dental scaling is still needed. Rada et al. analyzed the utilization of dental services with sociodemographic factors through a systematic review [78]. They concluded that the odds ratio of dental-service utilization differed according to the country profile in the elderly group. For example, North America or high-income Asia had a lower odds ratio, but Southeast Asia showed higher ratios, while no significant difference was observed in other countries. A Japanese study revealed that age did not significantly affect the dental utilization of adults [79]. The differences might be due to the system and coverage of dental care by the country and the dissimilar background with cultural literacy by generation. Further studies are needed to determine the relationship between the utilization of preventive dental services and age or generation, and the reason for this tendency.
This study has several limitations. First, health screening experience was used as a variable to categorize participants with dental scaling instead of an oral examination. This study used a sample cohort database that included only health screening records. General health screening by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea included health checkups, oral check-ups, cancer screenings, and infant health screenings. However, a sample cohort DB provided a record of general health screening only; therefore, it was impossible to use the experience variable for an oral examination. There is another dataset, the medical check-up cohort DB, which included approximately half a million NHI subscribers who received general medical check-ups and were aged 40 to 79 years between 2002 and 2003. Further studies are needed to apply this dataset focusing on the association between oral examination and preventive dental services, even with the restriction of age groups. Second, health behaviors related to the utilization of dental services were not included in this study. Andersen’s behavioral model of service utilization explained that there are several domains, such as predisposing, enabling, need, and behavioral factors, which result in outcomes of perceived health, evaluated health, or patient satisfaction [80,81,82,83]. As mentioned above, the dataset provided by the NHISS had a limitation on the range of variables related to oral health. Further studies are needed to determine the relationship between these health behaviors and other factors. Third, all the tables show the results for the whole population, not separated by sex. This study focused on the relationship between health screening and dental scaling. Sex could be a compounding variable closely related to these factors, for example, the utilization of dental services. This study showed slight differences by sex, but it was relatively small compared to the other factors. Recently, the researchers showed the results separately by sex; therefore, these results need to be considered.

5. Conclusions

People who had experience in health screening showed a higher tendency to use dental scaling. In addition, disparities in utilization according to socioeconomic status were reduced in the group of people who underwent screening. The intervention to extend dental coverage could be more beneficial when combined with health screening, which encourages more people to participate and reduces inequalities in utilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.-M.S., J.-S.H., and J.-I.R.; methodology, J.-I.R. and J.-S.H.; software, J.-I.R.; formal analysis, B.-M.S. and J.-I.R.; investigation, B.-M.S., J.-S.H., and J.-I.R.; writing—original draft preparation, B.-M.S. and J.-I.R.; writing—review and editing, B.-M.S., J.-S.H., and J.-I.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) in the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA) in South Korea, grant number 2018050203E-00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval of Ministry of Health and Welfare in South Korea were waived for this study, due to this research using information that is open to the general public, or research on human subjects and do not collect and record personally identifiable information (P01-201907-21-033).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived because we cannot identify individual patients.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from NHIS upon request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the members of the Korean Industrial Dental Health Association who supported this study in its research development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Kassebaum, N.J.; Smith, A.G.C.; Bernabe, E.; Fleming, T.D.; Reynolds, A.E.; Vos, T.; Murray, C.J.L.; Marcenes, W.; Collaborators, G.B.D.O.H. Global, Regional, and National Prevalence, Incidence, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Oral Conditions for 195 Countries, 1990–2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors. J. Dent. Res. 2017, 96, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Listl, S.; Galloway, J.; Mossey, P.A.; Marcenes, W. Global Economic Impact of Dental Diseases. J. Dent. Res. 2015, 94, 1355–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreno, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. Lancet 2019, 394, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. National Health Insurance Service. 2019 National Health Insurance Statistical Yearbook; National Health Insurance Service: Wonju, Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. National Health Insurance Service. 2019 A Survey on the Actual Condition of Medical Expenses for Health Insurance Patients; National Health Insurance Service: Wonju, Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jepsen, S.; Blanco, J.; Buchalla, W.; Carvalho, J.C.; Dietrich, T.; Dorfer, C.; Eaton, K.A.; Figuero, E.; Frencken, J.E.; Graziani, F.; et al. Prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at individual and population level: Consensus report of group 3 of joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, S85–S93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petersen, P.E.; Ogawa, H. The global burden of periodontal disease: Towards integration with chronic disease prevention and control. Periodontology 2000 2012, 60, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Petersen, P.E.; Ogawa, H. Promoting Oral Health and Quality of Life of Older People—The Need for Public Health Action. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2018, 16, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Antczak-Bouckoms, A.A.; Weinstein, M.C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of periodontal disease control. J. Dent. Res. 1987, 66, 1630–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Pourat, N.; Choi, M.K.; Chen, X. Evidence of effectiveness of preventive dental care in reducing dental treatment use and related expenditures. J. Public Health Dent. 2018, 78, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gross-Panico, M.L.; Freeman, W.K. Identifying barriers to receiving preventive dental services: Expanding access to preventive dental hygiene services through affiliated practice. J. Dent. Hyg. 2012, 86, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Wallace, B.B.; Macentee, M.I. Access to dental care for low-income adults: Perceptions of affordability, availability and acceptability. J. Community Health 2012, 37, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Johnson, B.; Serban, N.; Griffin, P.M.; Tomar, S.L. The cost-effectiveness of three interventions for providing preventive services to low-income children. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2017, 45, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lee, I.; Monahan, S.; Serban, N.; Griffin, P.M.; Tomar, S.L. Estimating the Cost Savings of Preventive Dental Services Delivered to Medicaid-Enrolled Children in Six Southeastern States. Health Serv. Res. 2018, 53, 3592–3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Damiano, P.C.; Shugars, D.A.; Johnson, J.D. Expanding health insurance coverage and the implications for dentistry. J. Public Health Dent. 1992, 52, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fisher-Owens, S.A.; Amendola, L.; Featherstone, J.D.B.; Inge, R.E.; Flaherman, V.J. Increased public reimbursement for prophylactic visits with dentists associated with increased receipt of preventive dental services in children. J. Public Health Dent. 2017, 77, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). Korea Health Statistics 2010: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANESV-1); Ministry of Health and Welfare: Sejong, Korea, 2011.
  18. National Health Insurance Service Social Security System of Korea. Available online: https://www.nhis.or.kr/static/html/wbd/g/a/wbdga0302.html (accessed on 26 March 2021).
  19. Claffey, N.; Polyzois, I.; Ziaka, P. An overview of nonsurgical and surgical therapy. Periodontology 2000 2004, 36, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Heitz-Mayfield, L.J.; Trombelli, L.; Heitz, F.; Needleman, I.; Moles, D. A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement vs non-surgical debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jang, Y.E.; Kim, C.B.; Kim, N.H. Influence of dental insurance coverage on access to preventive periodontal care in middle-aged and elderly populations: Analysis of representative Korean Community Health Survey Data (2011-2015). Int. Dent. J. 2019, 69, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Choi, J.S. Has the Health Insurance Coverage of Scaling Contributed Positively to Periodontal Health in Korea? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jang, Y.E.; Kim, C.B.; Kim, N.H. Utilization of Preventive Dental Services Before and After Health Insurance Covered Dental Scaling in Korea. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2017, 29, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, E.S.; Kim, B.I.; Jung, H.I. Does the national dental scaling policy reduce inequalities in dental scaling usage? A population-based quasi-experimental study. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Meyerhoefer, C.D.; Zuvekas, S.H.; Manski, R. The demand for preventive and restorative dental services. Health Econ. 2014, 23, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lee, S.R.; Ryu, J.I. Study of the implementation and development of a child·adolescent dental care service. J. Korean Soc. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 19, 343–350. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jung, S.H.; Ryu, J.I.; Shin, B.M. The Evaluation and Development of the Registered Dentist Program for School and Low-Income Children; Gangneung-Wonju National University: Seoul, Korea, 2014; pp. 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ryu, J.I.; Kim, Y.J.; Park, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.A.; Jung, J.I.; Hong, M.K.; Jung, S.H. An analysis of oral health status, dental service items, and fees among children receiving care from registered dentists over a three-year period. J. Korean Acad. Oral Health 2014, 38, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ryu, J.I.; Kim, Y.J.; Park, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.A.; Jung, J.I.; Kim, C.S.; Hong, M.K.; Jung, S.H. An analysis of dental service items and dental fees in registered dentists. J. Korean Acad. Oral Health 2013, 37, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. National Health Insurance Service. 2019 National Health Screening Statistical Yearbook; National Health Insurance Service: Wonju, Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  31. Strong, K.; Wald, N.; Miller, A.; Alwan, A.; Group, W.H.O.C. Current concepts in screening for noncommunicable disease: World Health Organization Consultation Group Report on methodology of noncommunicable disease screening. J. Med. Screen. 2005, 12, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. National Health Insurance Service. National Health Insurance Sharing Service. Available online: https://nhiss.nhis.or.kr/bd/ay/bdaya001iv.do (accessed on 26 March 2021).
  33. Thompson, S.G.; Ashton, H.A.; Gao, L.; Scott, R.A.; Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group. Screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm: 10 year mortality and cost effectiveness results from the randomised Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study. BMJ 2009, 338, b2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Hoerger, T.J.; Harris, R.; Hicks, K.A.; Donahue, K.; Sorensen, S.; Engelgau, M. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2004, 140, 689–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. The CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Study Group. The cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes. CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Study Group, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 1998, 280, 1757–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Deutekom, M.; Vansenne, F.; McCaffery, K.; Essink-Bot, M.L.; Stronks, K.; Bossuyt, P.M. The effects of screening on health behaviour: A summary of the results of randomized controlled trials. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Slade, A.N. Health investment decisions in response to diabetes information in older Americans. J. Health Econ. 2012, 31, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. van Doorn, D.; Richardson, N.; Osborne, A.; Blake, C. The impact of a workplace cardiovascular health screening programme ’Farmers Have Hearts’ on health behaviour change among Irish farmers. Work 2019, 63, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhao, M.; Konishi, Y.; Glewwe, P. Does information on health status lead to a healthier lifestyle? Evidence from China on the effect of hypertension diagnosis on food consumption. J. Health Econ. 2013, 32, 367–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, H.B.; Lee, S.A.; Lim, W. Knowing is not half the battle: Impacts of information from the National Health Screening Program in Korea. J. Health Econ. 2019, 65, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Teo, C.H.; Ng, C.J.; Booth, A.; White, A. Barriers and facilitators to health screening in men: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 165, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. dela Cruz, G.G.; Rozier, R.G.; Slade, G. Dental screening and referral of young children by pediatric primary care providers. Pediatrics 2004, 114, e642–e652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cheema, J.; Sabbah, W. Inequalities in preventive and restorative dental services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Br. Dent. J. 2016, 221, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reda, S.F.; Reda, S.M.; Thomson, W.M.; Schwendicke, F. Inequality in Utilization of Dental Services: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, e1–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rezaei, S.; Hajizadeh, M.; Irandoost, S.F.; Salimi, Y. Socioeconomic inequality in dental care utilization in Iran: A decomposition approach. Int. J. Equity Health 2019, 18, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gerreth, K.; Borysewicz-Lewicka, M. Access Barriers to Dental Health Care in Children with Disability. A Questionnaire Study of Parents. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2016, 29, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nelson, L.P.; Getzin, A.; Graham, D.; Zhou, J.; Wagle, E.M.; McQuiston, J.; McLaughlin, S.; Govind, A.; Sadof, M.; Huntington, N.L. Unmet dental needs and barriers to care for children with significant special health care needs. Pediatr. Dent. J. 2011, 33, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  48. Brister, T.M.; Damiano, P.C.; Momany, E.T.; Chalmers, J.; Kanellis, M. Dental utilization for Medicaid-enrolled adults with developmental disabilities in Iowa residential care facilities. Spec. Care Dentist 2008, 28, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Horner-Johnson, W.; Dobbertin, K.; Beilstein-Wedel, E. Disparities in dental care associated with disability and race and ethnicity. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2015, 146, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, M.; Wright, C.D.; Tokede, O.; Yansane, A.; Montasem, A.; Kalenderian, E.; Beaty, T.H.; Feingold, E.; Shaffer, J.R.; Crout, R.J.; et al. Predictors of dental care utilization in north-central Appalachia in the USA. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2019, 47, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, W.; Kim, S.J.; Albert, J.M.; Nelson, S. Community factors predicting dental care utilization among older adults. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2014, 145, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Rebelo Vieira, J.M.; Rebelo, M.A.B.; Martins, N.M.O.; Gomes, J.F.F.; Vettore, M.V. Contextual and individual determinants of non-utilization of dental services among Brazilian adults. J. Public Health Dent. 2019, 79, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Xu, M.; Cheng, M.; Gao, X.; Wu, H.; Ding, M.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X.; Feng, X.; Tai, B.; Hu, D.; et al. Factors associated with oral health service utilization among adults and older adults in China, 2015–2016. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2020, 48, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Luo, H.; Wu, Q.; Bell, R.A.; Wright, W.; Quandt, S.A.; Basu, R.; Moss, M.E. Rural-Urban Differences in Dental Service Utilization and Dental Service Procedures Received Among US Adults: Results From the 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. J. Rural Health 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Martin, A.B.; Vyavaharkar, M.; Veschusio, C.; Kirby, H. Rural-urban differences in dental service utilization among an early childhood population enrolled in South Carolina Medicaid. Matern. Child Health J. 2012, 16, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Melbye, M.L.; Chi, D.L.; Milgrom, P.; Huebner, C.E.; Grembowski, D. Washington state foster care: Dental utilization and expenditures. J. Public Health Dent. 2014, 74, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Simon, L.; Karhade, D.S.; Fox, K.; Barrow, J.; Palmer, N. Dental Services Utilization by Rurality Among Privately Insured Children in the United States. Pediatr. Dent. 2020, 42, 387–391. [Google Scholar]
  58. Skaar, D.D.; Hardie, N.A. Demographic factors associated with dental utilization among community dwelling elderly in the United States, 1997. J. Public Health Dent. 2006, 66, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wen, P.C.; Lee, C.B.; Chang, Y.H.; Ku, L.E.; Li, C.Y. Demographic and rural-urban variations in dental service utilization in Taiwan. Rural Remote Health 2017, 17, 4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wu, B. Dental service utilization among urban and rural older adults in China—A brief communication. J. Public Health Dent. 2007, 67, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jeon, J.E.; Lim, A.R.; Park, H.A.; Ryu, J.I. Does the Registered Dentists’ Program Alleviate the Socioeconomic Gap in the Use of Dental Sealants? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Will, J.C.; Loo, R.K. The WISEWOMAN program: Reflection and forecast. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2008, 5, A56. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Finkelstein, E.A.; Khavjou, O.; Will, J.C. Cost-effectiveness of WISEWOMAN, a program aimed at reducing heart disease risk among low-income women. J. Women’s Health 2006, 15, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Homan, S.G.; McBride, D.G.; Yun, S. The effect of the Missouri WISEWOMAN program on control of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and elevated blood glucose among low-income women. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2014, 11, E74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Khare, M.M.; Carpenter, R.A.; Huber, R.; Bates, N.J.; Cursio, J.F.; Balmer, P.W.; Nolen, K.N.; Hudson, H.; Shippee, S.J.; Loo, R.K. Lifestyle intervention and cardiovascular risk reduction in the Illinois WISEWOMAN Program. J. Women’s Health 2012, 21, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Khare, M.M.; Cursio, J.F.; Locklin, C.A.; Bates, N.J.; Loo, R.K. Lifestyle intervention and cardiovascular disease risk reduction in low-income Hispanic immigrant women participating in the Illinois WISEWOMAN program. J. Community Health 2014, 39, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khare, M.M.; Huber, R.; Carpenter, R.A.; Balmer, P.W.; Bates, N.J.; Nolen, K.N.; Hudson, H.K.; Lattyak, R.M.; Cursio, J.F.; Loo, R.K.; et al. A lifestyle approach to reducing cardiovascular risk factors in underserved women: Design and methods of the Illinois WISEWOMAN Program. J. Women’s Health 2009, 18, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mays, G.P.; Hesketh, H.A.; Ammerman, A.S.; Stockmyer, C.K.; Johnson, T.L.; Bayne-Smith, M. Integrating preventive health services within community health centers: Lessons from WISEWOMAN. J. Women’s Health 2004, 13, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Vaid, I.; Ahmed, K.; May, D.; Manheim, D. The WISEWOMAN program: Smoking prevalence and key approaches to smoking cessation among participants, July 2008-June 2013. J. Women’s Health 2014, 23, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Vaid, I.; Wigington, C.; Borbely, D.; Ferry, P.; Manheim, D. WISEWOMAN: Addressing the needs of women at high risk for cardiovascular disease. J. Women’s Health 2011, 20, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Viadro, C.I.; Farris, R.P.; Will, J.C. The WISEWOMAN projects: Lessons learned from three states. J. Women’s Health 2004, 13, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Park, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Park, S.; Kim, T.I. Changes in dental care access upon health care benefit expansion to include scaling. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016, 46, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Park, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Park, S.; Kim, T.I. Trends in the utilization of dental outpatient services affected by the expansion of health care benefits in South Korea to include scaling: A 6-year interrupted time-series study. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018, 48, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Kreider, B.; Manski, R.J.; Moeller, J.; Pepper, J. The effect of dental insurance on the use of dental care for older adults: A partial identification analysis. Health Economics 2015, 24, 840–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Woringer, M.; Cecil, E.; Watt, H.; Chang, K.; Hamid, F.; Khunti, K.; Dubois, E.; Evason, J.; Majeed, A.; Soljak, M. Evaluation of community provision of a preventive cardiovascular programme—the National Health Service Health Check in reaching the under-served groups by primary care in England: Cross sectional observational study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Lai, H.T.; Kung, P.T.; Su, H.P.; Tsai, W.C. Examining related influential factors for dental calculus scaling utilization among people with disabilities in Taiwan, a nationwide population-based study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2014, 35, 2231–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). Korea Health Statistics 2019: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANESVIII-1); Ministry of Health and Welfare: Sejong, Korea, 2020.
  78. Reda, S.M.; Krois, J.; Reda, S.F.; Thomson, W.M.; Schwendicke, F. The impact of demographic, health-related and social factors on dental services utilization: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2018, 75, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Murakami, K.; Aida, J.; Ohkubo, T.; Hashimoto, H. Income-related inequalities in preventive and curative dental care use among working-age Japanese adults in urban areas: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Hajek, A.; Kretzler, B.; Konig, H.H. Determinants of Dental Service Use Based on the Andersen Model: A Study Protocol for a Systematic Review. Healthcare 2020, 8, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Maffioletti, F.; Vettore, M.V.; Rebelo, M.; Herkrath, F.; Queiroz, A.; Herkrath, A.P.; Pereira, J.; Rebelo Vieira, J. Predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics of dental services utilization among socially deprived schoolchildren. J. Public Health Dent. 2020, 80, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Robinson, P.G.; Douglas, G.V.A.; Gibson, B.J.; Godson, J.; Vinall-Collier, K.; Pavitt, S.; Hulme, C. Remuneration of primary dental care in England: A qualitative framework analysis of perspectives of a new service delivery model incorporating incentives for improved access, quality and health outcomes. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e031886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Song, J.; Tomar, S.; Duncan, R.P.; Fogarty, K.; Johns, T.; Kim, J.N. The health care utilization model: Application to dental care use for Black and Hispanic children. J. Public Health Dent. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. The distribution of study sample between 2014 and 2015 in the National Health Insurance Sharing Service (NHISS).
Table 1. The distribution of study sample between 2014 and 2015 in the National Health Insurance Sharing Service (NHISS).
VariablesSubjectHealth ScreeningNo Health Screening
N(%)N(%)N(%)
Total851,792 (100.0)432,354(50.8)
(100.0)		419,428(49.2)
(100.0)
Gender
Male422,434 (49.6)219,726(50.8)202,708(48.3)
Female429,358 (50.4)212,638(49.2)216,720(51.7)
Age
70+94,570 (11.1)43,898 (10.2)50,672(12.1)***
60–6997,657 (11.5)66,627 (15.4)31,030(7.4)
50–59167,534 (19.7)105,375 (24.4)62,159(14.8)
40–49181,963 (21.4)108,314 (25.1)73,649(17.6)
30–39159,818 (18.8)70,547 (16.3)89,271(21.3)
20–29150,250 (17.6)37,603 (8.7)112,647(26.9)
City
Province458,866 (53.9)236,785 (54.8)222,081(52.9)
Metropolitan city392,926 (46.1)195,579 (45.2)197,347(47.1)
Disability
Yes50,967(6.0)25,164 (5.8)25,803 (6.2)***
No800,825(94.0)407,200 (94.2)393,625 (93.8)
Insurance type
Medicaid23,424 (2.7)5547 (1.3)17,877(4.3)***
Self-employed254,410 (29.9)95,197 (22.0)159,213(38.0)
Employee573,958 (67.4)331,620 (76.7)242,338(57.8)
Income quintile
Self-employed
1st31,188 (12.3)9753 (10.2)21,435 (13.5)***
2nd37,592(14.8)11,890 (12.5)25,702 (16.1)
3rd51,914(20.4)18,412 (19.3)33,502(21.0)
4th62,287(24.5)24,803 (26.1)37,484(23.5)
5th71,418(28.1)30,337 (31.9)41,081(25.8)
Employee
1st94,728(16.7)50,853 (15.6)43,875(18.3)***
2nd94,938(16.8)54,412 (16.7)40,526(16.9)
3rd102,780(18.1)61,870 (19.0)40,910(17.1)
4th120,256(21.2)74,626 (22.9)45,630(19.0)
5th153,665(27.1)84,669 (25.9)68,996(28.8)
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. The distribution of study sample with scaling between 2014 and 2015 in the National Health Insurance Sharing Service (NHISS).
Table 2. The distribution of study sample with scaling between 2014 and 2015 in the National Health Insurance Sharing Service (NHISS).
VariablesSubject Health Screening No Health Screening
N(%) N(%) N(%)
Total231,557(27.2)***136,438(31.6) 95,119(22.7)***
Gender
Male110,464(26.1)***68,108(31.0)***42,356(20.9)***
Female121,093(28.2) 68,330(32.1) 52,763(24.3)
Age
70+8982 (9.5)***5890 (13.4)***3092 (6.1)***
60–6923,739 (24.3) 18,281 (27.4) 5458 (17.6)
50–5947,740 (28.5) 34,658 (32.9) 13,082 (21.0)
40–4953,763 (29.5) 37,951 (35.0) 15,812 (21.5)
30–3951,300 (32.1) 25,848 (36.6) 25,452 (28.5)
20–2946,033 (30.6) 13,810 (36.7) 32,223 (28.6)
City
Province117,238(25.5)***70,134(29.6)***47,104(21.2)***
Metropolitan city114,319(29.1) 66,304(33.9) 48,015(24.3)
Disability
Yes8530(16.7)***5522(21.9)***3008(11.7)***
No223,027(27.8) 130,916(32.2) 92,111(23.4)
Insurance type
Medicaid3194(13.6)***1295(23.3)***1899(10.6)***
Self-employed58,636(23.0) 26,345(27.7) 32,291(20.3)
Employee169,727(29.6) 108,798(32.8) 60,929(25.1)
Income quintile
Self-employed
1st5087(16.3)***1989(20.4)***3098(14.5)***
2nd7235(19.2) 2845(23.9) 4390(17.1)
3rd10,915(21.0) 4654(25.3) 6261(18.7)
4th14,795(23.8) 6790(27.4) 8005(21.4)
5th20,604(28.8) 10,067(33.2) 10,537(25.6)
Employee
1st26,255(27.7)***15,409(30.3)***10,846(24.7)***
2nd25,914(27.3) 16,568(30.4) 9346(23.1)
3rd29,543(28.7) 19,563(31.6) 9980(24.4)
4th36,180(30.1) 24,903(33.4) 11,277(24.7)
5th49,661(32.3) 30,725(36.3) 18,936(27.4)
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression models for dental scaling in total in the NHISS (N = 851,791).
Table 3. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression models for dental scaling in total in the NHISS (N = 851,791).
(=Reference)UnadjustedModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
Gender (=Male)
Female1.11 (1.10–1.12) ***1.17 (1.16–1.18) ***1.17 (1.04–1.07) ***1.16 (1.15–1.17) ***1.16 (1.15–1.17) ***1.18 (1.17–1.19) ***
Age (=70+)
60–693.06 (2.98–3.14) ***3.11 (3.03–3.19) ***3.08 (3.00–3.16) ***3.02 (2.94–3.10) ***3.00 (2.92–3.08) ***2.74 (2.67–2.81) ***
50–593.80 (3.71–3.89) ***3.87 (3.78–3.96) ***3.83 (3.74–3.93) ***3.71 (3.62–3.80) ***3.73 (3.64–3.82) ***3.48 (3.40–3.57) ***
40–494.00 (3.90–4.09) ***4.08 (3.98–4.17) ***4.05 (3.95–4.14) ***3.88 (3.78–3.97) ***3.88 (3.79–3.98) ***3.69 (3.61–3.79) ***
30–394.50 (4.40–4.61) ***4.60 (4.49–4.71) ***4.55 (4.44–4.66) ***4.34 (4.23–4.44) ***4.20 (4.10–4.30) ***4.37 (4.26–4.48) ***
20–294.21 (4.11–4.31) ***4.31 (4.20–4.41) ***4.26 (4.16–4.37) ***4.05 (3.95–4.15) ***3.94 (3.85–4.04) ***4.51 (4.40–4.62) ***
City (=Province)
Metropolitan city1.20 (1.18–1.21) *** 1.17 (1.15–1.18) ***1.16 (1.15–1.17) ***1.16 (1.15–1.17) ***1.17 (1.16–1.19) ***
Disability (=Yes)
No1.92 (1.88–1.97) *** 1.41 (1.38–1.45) ***1.31 (1.27–1.34) ***1.28 (1.25–1.32) ***
Insurance type (=Medicaid)
Self-employed1.90 (1.83–1.97) *** 1.40 (1.35–1.46) ***1.36 (1.31–1.42) ***
Employee2.66 (2.56–2.76) *** 1.97 (1.89–2.05) ***1.70 (1.63–1.77) ***
Health screening (=No)
Yes1.57 (1.56–1.59) *** 1.63 (1.61–1.64) ***
*** p < 0.001. Model 1: adjusted for gender and age; Model 2: adjusted for gender, age, and city type; Model 3: adjusted for gender, age, city, and disability; Model 4: adjusted for gender, age, city, disability, and insurance type; Model 5: adjusted for gender, age, city, disability, insurance type, and national health screening.
Table
Table 4. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression models for dental scaling by insurance types in the NHISS.
Table 4. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression models for dental scaling by insurance types in the NHISS.
Unadjusted Model 4
(=Reference)With
Health Screening		Without
Health Screening		With
Health Screening		Without
Health Screening
Total
Gender (= Male)
Female1.05 (1.04–1.07) ***1.22 (1.20–1.24) ***1.10 (1.09–1.11) ***1.27 (1.25–1.29) ***
Age (=70+)
60–692.44 (2.36–2.52) ***3.28 (3.13–3.44) ***2.41 (2.34–2.49) ***3.30 (3.15–3.46) ***
50–593.16 (3.07–3.26) ***4.10 (3.94–4.27) ***3.11 (3.01–3.20) ***4.14 (3.97–4.31) ***
40–493.48 (3.38–3.59) ***4.21 (4.04–4.38) ***3.38 (3.28–3.49) ***4.20 (4.03–4.37) ***
30–393.73 (3.62–3.85) ***6.14 (5.90–6.38) ***3.54 (3.43–3.65) ***5.74 (5.52–5.97) ***
20–293.75 (3.62–3.88) ***6.17 (5.93–6.41) ***3.51 (3.39–3.64) ***5.84 (5.61–6.07) ***
City (=Province)
Metropolitan city1.22 (1.20–1.23) ***1.19 (1.18–1.21) ***1.19 (1.17–1.20) ***1.16 (1.14–1.17) ***
Disability (=Yes)
No1.69 (1.63–1.74) ***2.32 (2.23–2.41) ***1.25 (1.21–1.29) ***1.34 (1.29–1.40) ***
Insurance type (=Medicaid)
Self-employed1.26 (1.18–1.34) ***2.14 (2.04–2.25) ***1.30 (1.22–1.39) ***1.32 (1.25–1.39) ***
Employee1.60 (1.51–1.71) ***2.83 (2.69–2.97) ***1.56 (1.46–1.66) ***1.72 (1.63–1.81) ***
Self-employed
Gender (=Male)
Female1.10 (1.07–1.14) ***1.29 (1.26–1.32) ***1.12 (1.09–1.15) ***1.33 (1.30–1.36) ***
Age (=70+)
60–692.36 (2.22–2.51) ***2.87 (2.64–3.13) ***2.22 (2.08–2.35) ***2.85 (2.62–3.10) ***
50–592.73 (2.57–2.89) ***3.19 (2.96–3.43) ***2.60 (2.45–2.75) ***3.25 (3.02–3.51) ***
40–492.96 (2.80–3.14) ***3.20 (2.97–3.44) ***2.90 (2.73–3.08) ***3.30 (3.07–3.56) ***
30–392.65 (2.45–2.85) ***4.86 (4.52–5.23) ***2.79 (2.59–3.01) ***5.01 (4.66–5.40) ***
20–292.44 (2.23–2.67) ***4.95 (4.61–5.32) ***2.49 (2.27–2.72) ***4.94 (4.59–5.32) ***
City (=Province)
Metropolitan city1.23 (1.20–1.27) ***1.15 (1.13–1.18) ***1.19 (1.16–1.22) ***1.12 (1.09–1.15) ***
Disability (=Yes)
No1.50 (1.41–1.60) ***1.79 (1.67–1.91) ***1.18 (1.11–1.26) ***1.17 (1.09–1.26) ***
Income quintile (=1st)
2nd1.23 (1.15–1.31) ***1.22 (1.16–1.28) ***1.10 (1.03–1.17) **1.10 (1.05–1.16) ***
3rd 1.32 (1.24–1.40) ***1.36 (1.30–1.43) ***1.19 (1.12–1.26) ***1.22 (1.17–1.28) ***
4th1.47 (1.39–1.56) ***1.61 (1.54–1.68) ***1.32 (1.24–1.40) ***1.46 (1.39–1.52) ***
5th1.94 (1.84–2.05) ***2.04 (1.95–2.13) ***1.80 (1.71–1.91) ***1.91 (1.83–2.00) ***
Employee
Gender (=Male)
Female1.05 (1.04–1.07) ***1.18 (1.16–1.20) ***1.15 (1.13–1.17) ***1.21 (1.19–1.23) ***
Age (=70+)
60–692.50 (2.41–2.60) ***3.47 (3.27–3.69) ***2.72 (2.61–2.83) ***3.73 (3.51–3.96) ***
50–593.39 (3.27–3.51) ***4.78 (4.53–5.04) ***3.60 (3.47–3.74) ***5.10 (4.83–5.39) ***
40–493.68 (3.55–3.81) ***5.01 (4.75–5.28) ***3.82 (3.69–3.96) ***5.16 (4.89–5.44) ***
30–393.88 (3.74–4.02) ***6.52 (6.20–6.85) ***4.27 (4.12–4.44) ***6.82 (6.48–7.18) ***
20–293.94 (3.79–4.10) ***6.35 (6.04–6.67) ***4.56 (4.37–4.75) ***6.66 (6.33–7.01) ***
City (=Province)
Metropolitan city1.21 (1.93–1.23) ***1.20 (1.18–1.22) ***1.18 (1.16–1.20) ***1.16 (1.14–1.18) ***
Disability (=Yes)
No1.70 (1.64–1.76) ***2.51 (2.38–2.65) ***1.20 (1.16–1.25) ***1.38 (1.31–1.47) ***
Income quintile (=1st)
2nd1.01 (1.98–1.03) ***0.91 (0.88–0.94) ***0.95 (0.93–0.98) ***0.91 (0.88–0.94) ***
3rd 1.06 (1.04–1.09)0.98 (0.95–1.01)1.01 (0.98–1.04)1.00 (0.97–1.03)
4th1.15 (1.12–1.18) ***1.00 (0.97–1.03)1.16 (1.13–1.19) ***1.08 (1.05–1.11) ***
5th1.31 (1.28–1.34) ***1.15 (1.12–1.18) ***1.48 (1.45–1.52) ***1.37 (1.33–1.41) ***
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Model 4: adjusted for gender, age, city, disability, and insurance type or income quintile.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shin, B.-M.; Heo, J.-S.; Ryu, J.-I. An Investigation of the Association between Health Screening and Dental Scaling in Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4294. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18084294

AMA Style

Shin B-M, Heo J-S, Ryu J-I. An Investigation of the Association between Health Screening and Dental Scaling in Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):4294. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18084294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shin, Bo-Mi, Jung-Sun Heo, and Jae-In Ryu. 2021. "An Investigation of the Association between Health Screening and Dental Scaling in Korea" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 4294. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18084294

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop