HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2004.054858v1 95/8/1352    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siegal, M. D. Articles by Cole, S. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Siegal, M. D. Articles by Cole, S. L. Related Collections Dental/Oral Health Health Policy Access to Care

Mark D. Siegal, DDS, MPH, Mary L. Marx, MA and Shannon L. Cole, RDH, BS

Mark D. Siegal and Shannon L. Cole are with the Bureau of Oral Health Services, Ohio Department of Health, Columbus. Mary L. Marx is with the Evaluation Services Center, College of Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Correspondence: Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Mark Siegal, Bureau of Oral Health Services, Ohio Department of Health, PO Box 118, Columbus, OH 43216–0118 (e-mail: bohs{at}odh.ohio.gov).

Objectives. We conducted 5 surveys on consumer and provider perspectives on access to dental care for Ohio Head Start children to assess the need and appropriate strategies for action.

Methods. We collected information from Head Start children (open-mouth screenings), their parents or caregivers (questionnaire and telephone interviews), Head Start staff (interviews), and dentists (questionnaire). Geocoded addresses were also analyzed.

Results. Twenty-eight percent of Head Start children had at least 1 decayed tooth. For the 11% of parents whose children could not get desired dental care, cost of care or lack of insurance (34%) and dental office factors (20%) were primary factors. Only 7% of general dentists and 29% of pediatric dentists reported accepting children aged 0 through 5 years of age as Medicaid recipients without limitation. Head Start staff and dentists felt that poor appointment attendance negatively affected children’s receiving care, but parents/caregivers said finding accessible dentists was the major problem.

Conclusions. Many Ohio Head Start children do not receive dental care. Medicaid and patient age were primary dental office limitations that are partly offset by the role Head Start plays in ensuring dental care. Dentists, Head Start staff, and parents/caregivers have different perspectives on the problem of access to dental care.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Mofidi, L. P. Zeldin, and R. G. Rozier Oral Health of Early Head Start Children: A Qualitative Study of Staff, Parents, and Pregnant Women Am J Public Health, February 1, 2009; 99(2): 245 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Lewis, W. Mouradian, R. Slayton, and A. Williams Dental insurance and its impact on preventive dental care visits for U.S. children J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2007; 138(3): 369 - 380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Dharamsi Building Moral Communities? First, Do No Harm. J Dent Educ., November 1, 2006; 70(11): 1235 - 1240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. D. SIEGAL and M. L. MARX Ohio dental care providers' treatment of young children, 2002 J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2005; 136(11): 1583 - 1591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]