The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 136, No 11, 1583-1591.
© 2005 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SIEGAL, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by MARX, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by SIEGAL, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by MARX, M. L.

TRENDS

Ohio dental care providers’ treatment of young children, 2002



MARK D. SIEGAL, D.D.S., M.P.H. and MARY L. MARX, M.A.

Background. Adequate access to dental care for young children—particularly those from low-income families—is a public concern. The authors conducted a survey of Ohio dental care providers to examine factors influencing their willingness to care for these children.

Methods. Random samples of Ohio general practitioner (GPs) dentists and pediatric dentists (PDs) and all Ohio safety-net dental clinics completed a mail survey regarding treatment of children aged 0 through 5 years. The authors categorized responses by provider type and further analyzed GPs’ responses by years since graduation and geographic character.

Results. Few Ohio GPs (8 percent) recommended a first dental visit by 1 year of age. While 91 percent of GPs treated children aged 3 through 5 years, only 34 percent treated children aged 0 through 2 years, most often for emergency visits or examinations. Only 7 percent of all GPs and 29 percent of PDs accepted patients enrolled in Medicaid without limitations.

Conclusions. Children’s being young (0–2 years of age) and having Medicaid as a payment source made GPs substantially less likely to treat them. Children’s being enrolled in Head Start made GPs somewhat more likely to treat them.

Practice Implications. New strategies for ensuring dental care access for young children from low-income families are necessary. Such strategies may take the form of interpeer advocacy, education, practice incentives or creation of coordinated GP and PD teams.

Key Words: Access to dental health care; dental care for children; Medicaid




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
J. P. Rich III, L. Straffon, and M. R. Inglehart
General Dentists and Pediatric Dental Patients: The Role of Dental Education
J Dent Educ., December 1, 2006; 70(12): 1308 - 1315.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2005 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.