Table 5.
Cost-effective results
| Commissioner's perspective | Costs (£) | OHIP (points) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Blended contract practices | 459.77 (278.42) | 7.110 (7.673) | |
| Traditional contract practices | 281.57 (218.71) | 8.005 (8.699) | |
| Incremental cost | Incremental OHIP | ICER (£/OHIP) | |
| Blended contract vs Traditional practices | 178.20 | −0.895 | 199.22 |
| Service providers perspective | Costs (£) | OHIP (points) | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Blended contract practices | −209.26 (123.36) | 7.110 (7.673) | |
| Traditional contract practices | −116.21 (99.16) | 8.005 (8.699) | |
| Incremental cost | Incremental OHIP | ICER (£/OHIP) | |
| Blended contract vs Traditional practices | −93.05 | −0.895 | −104.03 BLENDED CONTRACT DOMINATES |
| Commissioner's perspective | Costs (£) | QALY | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Blended contract practices | 459.77 (278.42) | 1.659 (0.451) | |
| Traditional contract practices | 281.57 (218.71) | 1.660 (0.342) | |
| Incremental cost | Incremental QALY | ICER (£/QALY) | |
| Blended contract vs Traditional practices | 178.20 | −0.0008 | BLENDED CONTRACT DOMINATED |
| Service providers’ perspective | Costs (£) | QALY | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Blended contract practices | −209.26 (123.36) | 1.659 (0.451) | |
| Traditional contract practices | −116.21 (99.16) | 1.660 (0.342) | |
| Incremental cost | Incremental QALY | ICER (£/QALY) | |
| Blended contract vs Traditional practices | −93.05 | −0.0008 | 122,089.48 |
ICER, incremental cost-effective ratios; OHIP, Oral Health Impact Profile; QALY, quality-adjusted life years.