Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Neighborhood Characteristics and Surgical Treatment Disparities on Overall Mortality in Stage I Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
New Method of Avoiding Underestimation of Caries Incidence and Its Association with Possible Risk Factors in Japanese University Students: A Prospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Unifying Evidence on Delay Discounting: Open Task, Analysis Tutorial, and Normative Data from an Italian Sample
Previous Article in Special Issue
Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of Arab Dental Students: Multi-National Cross-Sectional Study and Literature Analysis 2000–2020
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph19042051
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

Travel Time for Dental Care Services Based on Patient Preference in South Korea

by
Han-A Cho
1,
Bo-Ra Kim
2 and
Hosung Shin
3,*
1
Department of Dental Hygiene, Shinhan University, 95, Hoam-ro, Uijeongbu-si 11644, Korea
2
Department of Dental Hygiene, Namseoul University, 91, Cheonan-si 31020, Korea
3
Department of Social and Humanity in Dentistry, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry, 460, Iksan-daero, Iksan-si 54538, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(4), 2051; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042051
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Revised: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2022 / Published: 12 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral Health and Health Promotion Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study analyzed patient preferences using travel time from residence to dental institution when selecting dental care services. We used data from the Korean Health Panel from 2008 to 2017 and analyzed each dental service episode. Since the distribution of travel time was skewed to the left, median travel time was analyzed. The association of travel time with services was analyzed via the population-averaged generalized estimating equation (GEE) with the Poisson family. The median of the average travel time per episode was longer for non-National Health Insurance (NHI)-covered services and shorter for NHI-covered services. The first quintile of low-income subjects traveled the longest for all services and utilized dental care the most. In the GEE analysis, travel time was approximately three times longer for implant treatment and gold inlay/resin fillings and >2 times longer for orthodontic care than for NHI-covered services. Patients residing in rural counties traveled for longer than residents of large cities. Income was statistically significant; however, the coefficient was close to zero. Travel time was related to the type of service and reflected patient preference. This was more prominent for expensive non-NHI-covered services than for NHI-covered services. The findings suggest patients’ subjective preferences for dental clinic selection are expressed as rational deliberation considering each individual’s situation.

1. Introduction

Issues in healthcare access include travel time, convenience, choice of provider, quality, and cost of care [1,2]. These factors were related to the evolution from potential access to realized access and focused on the interaction between key elements that determined the use of healthcare services [3]. Penchansky described access to health care in terms of five dimensions: availability, affordability, accommodation, acceptability, and accessibility [4]. Availability is related to the adequacy of the supply. Affordability is related to a patient’s ability to pay for healthcare services. Accommodation describes the organization and content of the healthcare system as it relates to clinical hours, waiting time, and transportation. Acceptability represents the attitudes toward providers, which are related to provider–patient relationship, number of visits for treatment, quality of care, etc. Accessibility, which is related to the geographic location of a healthcare institution, is often measured in terms of travel time, distance, travel cost, and the effort required to reach the facility [4,5].
In general, patients are reluctant to increase travel time for the treatment they want [6,7], and they prefer to seek care from a provider near their residence [6]. Research indicates that patients more often tend to visit providers located in close proximity to their homes [8]. Conversely, when patients want to receive treatment from a high-quality provider [7,9] or a healthcare institution with a good reputation [10], they have been shown to be willing to endure the additional travel time [9] and opportunity cost burden. For non-emergency and elective treatments, the expertise of the healthcare provider (or a need for specialized care) also has an effect on patient travel time. For example, low-income children and adolescents have been shown to travel longer distances to receive orthodontic treatment than others [11]. Users of dental treatment for non-covered services of the National Health Insurance (NHI; hereafter ‘non-NHI-covered’) in South Korea, which includes mostly non-emergency and elective treatments (e.g., implants/orthodontics and dental prostheses) traveled further to receive treatment, bypassing the dental office nearest their residence [12,13].
In terms of the bypass concept, many studies have analyzed the preferences of patients using healthcare services in rural and remote areas [14,15,16], at residences and workplaces [8], in limited groups [11,17], and in a dental setting [12]. Patient preference in choosing a healthcare institution is based on individual perception and reflects the patient’s healthcare wishes. Both preference and decision are reported to be related to health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control [18]. Therefore, patient preference involves the relative desirability or acceptability of healthcare services or providers, resulting in the patient entertaining tradeoffs between the factors considered when making individual decisions [5]. To actively select providers that best suit their preferences and needs, patients typically compare the price and quality of healthcare providers [5,19]. Studies also suggest that the choice of healthcare provider can be an expression of patient expectations of how a health facility improves on its service delivery, and the satisfaction of the patient’s own prior experience, or that of others [5]. However, because expectations when selecting a healthcare institution can affect patient satisfaction, continuous and effective management of patient expectations is required to reduce negative evaluations of treatment experience [20].
Anderson argued that realized access was related to type, site, purpose, and coordinated services received [3]. Travel time in this study is a measure of spatial proximity to the dental institution for realized access. Patient preferences for certain providers are expressed as choosing a specific healthcare institution among numerous alternatives, taking into account all the factors involved in that choice, such as Penchansky’s five terms for access to care. From the patient’s viewpoint, these terms include the spatial proximity to a specific healthcare institution (i.e., travel time). In this study, travel time reflects the patient’s preference for obtaining dental treatment. The travel time to reach a dental clinic to receive the dental care service was analyzed to identify the difference between dental service types, such as non-NHI-covered services and NHI-covered services.

Dental Healthcare in South Korea

As of 2018, the average DMFT (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth) experienced by 12 year-old children was 1.84, which is higher than the average of 1.2 in OECD member countries [21]. National Health Insurance (NHI) is a healthcare insurance system operated by a single insurer that is compulsory for all South Korean citizens (living in S. Korea). In terms of the dental benefits, most conservative treatments, periodontal treatments, and oral surgeries are covered, but orthodontic, prosthetic, and preventive services are not covered. As a result, patients paid out-of-pocket costs corresponding to 63–73% of the total dental expenses, although the co-pay for NHI-covered benefit items is 30% [22,23,24]. Since 2012, dental benefits have been expanded in stages, providing preventive services for children, as well as complete and partial dentures once per lifetime and up to two implants for the elderly [25]. Of the elderly population aged 65 years and older, 41.6% received NHI-covered dentures or dental implants. Among them, implants accounted for 23.7% of the elderly population [26]. Recently (2021), orthodontic treatment was provided only to patients with congenital orofacial anomalies. The co-pay for orthodontic treatment is 30% by default, but there is a slight difference depending on the socioeconomic status of the patient [27].
In 2019, the number of dentists per 1000 of the population was 0.5, which is lower than the OECD average [28]. However, the annual number of outpatient dental visits per capita was 1.4, which is slightly higher than the OECD average [29]. According to existing research, most studies revealed that dentists in South Korea were in a state of oversupply [30,31]. However, they were concentrated in highly populated areas, such as large cities; in rural areas, patients traveled an average of twice as long to visit dental facilities [12]. Since the dental specialist system began in 2011, 11 dental specializations have been established. In 2018, the number of dental specialists increased sharply, and 30% of all active dentists were specialists. Among them, 17.6% were prosthetists and 17.7% were orthodontists [29]. However, currently, the referral system between primary and secondary dental care is not clearly divided in the dental care delivery system. As a result, more than 90% of dentists perform the role of primary care dentist [24]. There is no distinction between private dentistry and university-based dentistry, and patients choose university dental hospitals or private clinics according to their preference. However, there is a difference in the cost of treatment for the same service. At the municipal level, public health centers are installed in South Korea. These public institutions initially aimed to provide healthcare services for people living in disadvantaged areas. However, in recent years, rather than providing healthcare services, these institutions have provided local public health services [32].
Choosing a dental facility is a free choice. The total cost, including travel expense, is borne by the individual. Private dental insurance, which is supplemental insurance and has about 1 insured person for every 10 aged 20 to 50, offers various dental plans depending on the treatment details, dental materials, and the age of the insured individual, but transportation expenses are not included in the benefit details [33].

2. Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (WKIRB-202102-SB-006) of Wonkwang University.

2.1. Data and Subjects

This study is a longitudinal study, and data from the Korea Health Panel (KHP) (version 1.6) were used for the 10 years from 2008 to 2017, inclusive. The KHP is a representative health care panel survey that can analyze in-depth not only information on healthcare use behavior and expenditure but also factors affecting healthcare use and expenditure. The KHP periodically conducts the same questionnaire every year for the same households across the country. In order to collect data for KHP, a surveyor in charge of panel households is assigned first (one surveyor per about one-hundred households), and education is provided on the contents of the KHP survey and the questionnaire guideline. Next, the investigator makes a household visit and performs a CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interview)-based survey. When surveyors visit target households, they collect healthcare expense or prescription drug receipts related to the household’s healthcare with participants’ health account books to prevent omissions or errors. The KHP collects personal and household data on the socioeconomic characteristics of households and household members, income, living expenses, and private healthcare insurance subscription details, as well as detailed descriptions of annual total healthcare use and expenditure, including dental services. It also has the advantage of tracking changes in healthcare use and expenses according to disease and type of service [34].
Starting with 7866 households and 24,616 household members in 2008, a sample of approximately 82% was active, including 17,184 household members of 6408 households in 2017. This study used 53,963 dental episodes of 7681 households, 16,493 household members, and 173,863 cases for 10 years of dental treatment services. The unit of analysis in this study was defined following the protocol of Korea’s Standards of Medical Care Benefits (KSMCB) [35]. According to KSMCB, the last visit within 90 days due to relevant services was classified as the same episode, but if the visit for the same disease exceeded 90 days, it was considered as a new episode. Based on those judgments, all dental treatments were recalculated in units of episodes.

2.2. Variables

Sex, age, marital status, educational attainment level, economic activity, household income, private dental insurance, medical aid, regionality, and dental service type were selected as independent variables. Age was divided into three categories: children, <20 years of age; adults, 20 to ≤65 years; and elderly, >65 years. Marital status was categorized as married or single [22]. Educational attainment level was classified into three categories: middle school graduation or lower, high school graduation, and college or higher [13,22]. For income, a square root equivalence scale that considered the household’s total earned income, total asset income, and the number of household members for one year was used [36]. In the case of economic activities, the existence of a job was checked regardless of regular or non-regular status [22,37]. Private dental health insurance and medical aid were dichotomized [37,38]. To check the distribution of dental resources by geographical region, the participant’s living areas were divided into large city districts, small- and medium-sized cities, and rural counties [13].
The dental services under the NHI-covered dental benefits in this study include: (1) amalgam filling and composite resin filling; (2) periodontal treatment after diagnosis of gingivitis and periodontal disease; (3) endodontic treatment; (4) all extraction procedures, including alveoloplasty; (5) sealant treatment for individuals under the age of 18 as a preventive treatment; and (6) scaling for preventive purposes [13,39]. When classifying the type of dental treatment, the study used the KHP questionnaire. The dental treatment variables were classified as follows: (1) NHI-covered dental service, (2) denture and fixed bridge, (3) gold inlay and resin filling, (4) implant, (5) orthodontic, (6) teeth whitening, and (7) others (e.g., oral health education, oral examination, and temporomandibular treatment). NHI-covered services were aggregated into one because out-of-pocket expenses were low and would not act as a factor in terms of travel burden for seeking a preferred dental clinic. Patients in Korea preferred to visit dental clinics near their residences for NHI-covered dental services. The travel mode was divided into by walking and by vehicle (using a private vehicle, taxi, public transportation, train/airplane, and free shuttle bus).
The dependent variable, travel time [40], was calculated using the patient’s average visit time per dental episode and reflected the following question: “How many minutes did it take to get from home (or work) to the dental office (hospital)?” In this case, ‘dental episode’ refers to the episode organized according to the definition given above. Studies examining healthcare utilization behavior often use geographical information systems, which can underestimate the actual travel distance or travel time due to traffic congestion or traffic signal systems [41,42]. The authors concluded that the patient’s direct response on the questionnaire expressed more accurate spatial proximities to dental institutions.

2.3. Analyses

The median test was performed to confirm the characteristics of the participants due to the left-skewed distribution. The population-averaged generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to estimate the association between dental services and travel time. In this study, the choice of dental clinic was related to the particular dental service that a patient would like to receive. That is, patients tended to choose dental clinics carefully when obtaining expensive treatments, such as non-NHI-covered services, while NHI-covered services were not chosen as carefully in comparison. For repeated measurements, GEE is often used to consider intra-individual correlation [43,44,45]. The GEE in this study estimates the population-based average influence of travel time on dental service selection. For privacy protection reasons, the participants’ geographical region variables contained some missing values (about 15% of episodes); thus, the analysis was conducted without these missing values. All analyses were performed using the R software (R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) package (R version 4.0.0, www.r-project.org (accessed on 28 April 2021)).

3. Results

3.1. General Participant Characteristics

NHI-covered dental services were the most common, followed by denture and fixed bridge, others, and orthodontics. Female, 20–65 year-old, single, middle/high-school-educated level, and employed participants sought more dental services than those of the reference. Those who subscribed to private dental insurance and had medical aid sought a small number of dental episodes because the number of people in the group was small.
The median of the average travel time per episode of gold inlay and resin filling was the longest, regardless of travel mode, followed by implants. Conversely, the median of the average travel time per episode of NHI-covered treatment was the shortest. Older age, single, unemployed, medical aid recipients and low-income groups (first quantile of equivalent income, Q1) traveled for a relatively long time. In geographical regions, the median average travel time per episode in the rural counties was the longest. Private dental insurance did not show a statistically significant meaning (Table 1).

3.2. The Average Visit Number Per Episode by Income Quintile

The average frequency of dental visits per episode in the income quintile for 2008–2017 was analyzed (Figure 1). The first income quintile (Q1) refers to the lowest income group, and the fifth quintile (Q5) is the highest. The average frequency of dental visits per episode was highest in Q1, and the third quartile was the lowest. Here, the average frequency of dental visits per episode in Q5 was higher than that in the third quartile because participants in Q5 used dental services that required a large number of visits per episode, such as orthodontic and prosthodontic treatments.

3.3. GEE Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the GEE analyses. Model 1 was targeted at patients who traveled by vehicle, and Model 2 was targeted at patients who traveled by both vehicles and on foot. Model 3 included the geographical variables in Model 2. Travelling to the dental institution on foot might be limited to within the range of the person’s living area. Since there is no difference from the point of view of the consumer in the movement within the living area, considering the use of dental care by walking as a patient’s preference may not be appropriate. Therefore, it was excluded from the GEE analysis. Models 1 and 2 showed similar trends, indicating that the travel time for non-NHI-covered services took approximately 2 to 3 times longer than for NHI-covered service visits. Model 2 confirmed that travel time for non-NHI-covered services was approximately 3.4 times as long as it took to receive implant treatment, 3 times as long as gold inlay and resin filling, and 2.3 times as long as orthodontic treatment compared to NHI-covered services. Patients residing in rural counties traveled longer than large-city residents (Model 3), and income showed a statistically significant association with travel time, but the coefficient was close to zero, indicating that its influence on travel time was almost negligible.

3.4. Travel Time According to Income Quintile by Dental Care Service

The GEE results for equivalence income did not appear to have a meaningful effect on travel time, contrary to what was expected, based on previous studies. The present study showed travel time according to income quintile by seven dental service groups (Figure 2). The first quintile (Q1) traveled longer to receive all types of dental service. In particular, the travel time for the implant in Q1 was the longest. The dental care utilization of Q1 was clearly different from that of other quintiles, but there was no statistically significant difference between the remaining quintiles. The confidence intervals of Q1 did not overlap in any type of dental service, except gold inlay and resin filling with others.

4. Discussion

Travel time, which is usually proportional to travel distance [46], is a cost for patients, especially when insurance coverage for healthcare services is comprehensive or the proportion of out-of-pocket expenses is not large [47]. Travel time also indicates the patient’s preference when selecting treatment [13]. In this study, the travel time for non-NHI-covered services increased compared to that for NHI-covered services. For example, implant and gold inlay and resin filling took approximately three times longer than NHI-covered treatment. These findings suggest that NHI-covered treatment was often provided near the place of residence, but non-NHI-covered services, which usually incurred high costs per episode, were served at the expense of opportunistic travel time.
Orthodontic services took approximately 2.3 times longer to travel to compared to NHI-covered treatment. Orthodontic services improve appearance, promote oral health, and enhance self-esteem [48]. Moshkelgosha et al. [49] argued that the desire to receive high-cost and high-quality orthodontic treatment might differ depending on the socioeconomic background. Recommendations from friends or relatives and referral to a specific orthodontist were reported to serve as an option to select orthodontic treatment. Local residence and increased travel distances were not barriers to accessibility for orthodontic treatment in Medicaid-enrolled children and adolescents [11]. In this study, the increased travel time for orthodontic treatment was similar to the results of previous studies. Patients with high educational attainment preferred to travel for longer times to find orthodontists who were likely to provide high-quality services.
Dental implants have been an alternative dental service for prosthodontic treatments since the early 2000s, and the dental implant services as NHI benefits in 2014 have expanded the patient base in terms of treatment outcome satisfaction [50]. Dental insurance reform, which expanded the number of targets, provided NHI-covered implant services for up to two teeth by covering 30% of out-of-pocket expenditure [51]. Out-of-pocket expenditure for implant treatment was not as high as for other alternatives with higher satisfaction. Dental implants were evaluated as a cost-effective service from the patient’s point of view. The ease of information retrieval using online searches for dental institutions and implant services has itself contributed to the increase in dental implants [52]. In these circumstances, the number of patients receiving implant treatment has rapidly increased. The decisions made by patients after recognizing them could be interpreted as preferences [52].
Education showed an inverse relationship with travel time. Probst et al. [53] reported that the higher the education level, the shorter the travel time. Farlina and Maharani [54] found that low education levels were positively correlated with frequency of dental care utilization. In this study, different models showed different results, as shown in Table 2. Information acquisition and the utilization of dental services might not be directly proportional to educational background. Lee and Chang [55] reported that approximately 60% of university students had higher oral health literacy than junior high school graduates, but 40% had a lower oral health literacy. Our findings are similar to those reported by Lee and Chang [55]; however, for the highly educated group, the opportunity cost due to long visit times might be considered as important [56].
Jean et al. [57], who studied the travel time for dental care in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups living in remote communities, and Cao et al. [58], who reported the travel time for access to preventive dental care, showed that the lower the group, the greater the travel time. Seo et al. [59] reported that the NHI dental policy benefited the out-of-pocket spending of low-income households and the elderly. Table 2 of this study provides evidence to support this point. When dividing the income into five quintiles in Figure 2, no significant difference in travel time is shown by dental treatment among the other quintiles except for the lowest income quintile, and the lowest group in the quintile travels the longest distance regardless of the type of service. From these data, two interpretations were possible for the high-income groups. First, if it took a long time to travel for dental services, high-income groups might prefer not to travel far because the opportunistic cost was large in proportion. Second, many dental offices already provided preferred dental services near the patients’ homes, so they did not need to travel far. In fact, as of 2015, 75% of registered dentists practiced in metropolitan areas. By contrast, the frequency of dental care utilization was higher in the first quintile than in the fifth quintile. The frequent visits and long travel times in the first income quantile were seen as a result of poor oral health conditions and the search for affordable treatments by patients [13,53,60,61].
As a proxy for the distribution of dental resources in this study, rural county residents had a greater travel time for dental services than those living in large city districts, indicating geographical differences. Previous studies reported that the uneven distribution of dental offices became an obstacle to accessibility to dental care services [53,62,63]. When comparing Model 2 without regional variables and Model 3, there was a small difference in the coefficients. The role of regional variables in the effect of travel time on dental service selection was not large, meaning that the influence of uneven dental resources on dental care utilization was minor. It could be interpreted that within the same geographical locations, an increase in travel time was due to patient preference, and that the influence of the covariates was not significantly affected within the same region.
When selecting a dental clinic, patients often consider the opinions of family members or acquaintances, or an Internet search. Depending on limited information, they choose a dental institution that meets their dental needs. According to previous research that reported the use of mobile applications (apps) in relation to the accessibility of dental institutions in Korea, most apps are commercial and made for business [64]. Internet-based information produced by public institutions, such as ‘Finding Local Clinic,’ is very limited at the time of writing. A barrier of digital literacy may exist in the use of mobile apps. However, if a mobile app that provides crucial dental treatment information along with the location of the nearest dental office using location-based services is considered [65], it will have a positive effect on access to dental care.
The main limitation of this study was that travel time might not reflect actual variations due to recall bias. However, since travel time was a response to multiple visits by patients, it was not only judged through the subjective memory of one visit but could rather be close to the objective travel time. Additionally, since the KHP was not a kind of claims data for the National Health Insurance Service, when information about the service type was collected, it depended on the respondents. Depending on the dental knowledge of the respondents, service types might not coincide with dental treatments. However, since the study utilized episodes rather than individual visits, the dental services used in this study would likely reflect actual treatment details.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the effect of travel time as a means of measuring the patient’s preference was examined. Travel times differed, depending on the type of dental service and the patient’s socioeconomic status. This preference was prominent in implant and orthodontic treatment and appeared as a result of reflecting the patient’s rational choice and health literacy in terms of dental care. The study’s findings suggest that if the dental patients required NHI-covered treatment, they preferred shorter travel times and were less prudent in choosing a healthcare provider. However, if the patients needed elective dental services, much more distant dental institutions (or providers) were considered. As one of the aspects of dental management, dental providers can deepen their relationship with patients through information as to their competitiveness and service quality improvement. This can have a positive impact on patients’ autonomous choice of health care institution as one of the factors that can overcome the accessibility barriers to health care use such as travel distance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S. and H.-A.C.; methodology, H.S. and H.-A.C.; software, H.S. and H.-A.C.; validation, H.S., H.-A.C. and B.-R.K.; formal analysis, H.S. and H.-A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, H.S. and H.-A.C.; writing—review and editing, H.S., H.-A.C. and B.-R.K.; visualization, H.-A.C.; supervision, H.S.; project administration, B.-R.K.; funding acquisition, H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI19C1218).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board (WKIRB-202102-SB-006) of Wonkwang University. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was exempted because this study used the research data that were obtained and anonymously provided by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs and are available at https://www.khp.re.kr:444/eng/main.do (accessed on 10 February 2022) with the permission of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this study.

References

  1. Hyndman, J.C.; Holman, C.D. Accessibility and spatial distribution of general practice services in an Australian city by levels of social disadvantage. Soc. Sci. Med. 2001, 53, 1599–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Victoor, A.; Delnoij, D.M.J.; Friele, R.D.; Rademakers, J.J. Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: A scoping review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012, 12, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Andersen, R.M. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? J. Health Soc. Behav. 1995, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Penchansky, R.; Thomas, J.W. The concept of access: Definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med. Care 1981, 19, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Uchendu, O.C.; Ilesanmi, O.S.; Olumide, A.E. Factors influencing the choice of health care providing facility among workers in a local government secretariat in south western Nigeria. Ann. Ib. Postgrad. Med. 2013, 11, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  6. Burge, P.; Devlin, N.; Appleby, J.; Rohr, C.; Grant, J. Do patients always prefer quicker treatment? Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2004, 3, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burge, P.; Devlin, N.; Appleby, J.; Rohr, C.; Grant, J. London Patient Choice Project Evaluation: A Model of Patients’ Choices of Hospital from Stated and Revealed Preference Choice Data; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2005; p. 45. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brondeel, R.; Weill, A.; Thomas, F.; Chaix, B. Use of healthcare services in the residence and workplace neighbourhood: The effect of spatial accessibility to healthcare services. Health Place 2014, 30, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leonard, K.L.; Mliga, G.R.; Haile Mariam, D. Bypassing health centres in Tanzania: Revealed preferences for quality. J. Afr. Econ. 2002, 11, 441–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pilny, A.; Mennicken, R. Does hospital reputation influence the choice of hospital? Ruhr. Economic. Paper 2014, 516, 1–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. McKernan, S.C.; Kuthy, R.A.; Momany, E.T.; McQuistan, M.R.; Hanley, P.F.; Jones, M.P.; Damiano, P.C. Geographic accessibility and utilization of orthodontic services among Medicaid children and adolescents. J. Public Health Dent. 2013, 73, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Shin, H.; Ahn, E. Does the regional deprivation impact the spatial accessibility to dental care services? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Shin, H.; Cho, H.A. Spatial barriers and the bypassing of nearby dental clinics for dental services: A secondary data analysis in Korea. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e024116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kruk, M.E.; Mbaruku, G.; McCord, C.W.; Moran, M.; Rockers, P.C.; Galea, S. Bypassing primary care facilities for childbirth: A population-based study in rural Tanzania. Health Policy Plan. 2009, 24, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sanders, S.R.; Erickson, L.D.; Call, V.R.; McKnight, M.L.; Hedges, D.W. Rural health care bypass behavior: How community and spatial characteristics affect primary health care selection. J. Rural. Health 2015, 31, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shin, H.; Lee, S.H. Factors affecting spatial distance to outpatient health services. Korean J. Health Policy Adm. 2011, 21, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sanders, S.R.; Erickson, L.D.; Call, V.R.; McKnight, M.L. Middle-aged and older adult health care selection: Health care bypass behavior in rural communities in Montana. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2017, 36, 441–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Russo, S.; Jongerius, C.; Faccio, F.; Pizzoli, S.F.; Pinto, C.A.; Veldwijk, J.; Janssens, R.; Simons, G.; Falahee, M.; de Bekker-Grob, M.; et al. Understanding patients’ preferences: A systematic review of psychological instruments used in patients’ preference and decision studies. Value Health 2019, 22, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Medical Device Innovation Consortium. Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) Patient Centered Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences Regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  20. Afrashtehfar, K.I.; Assery, M.K.; Bryant, S.R. Patient satisfaction in medicine and dentistry. Int. J. Dent. 2020, 2020, 6621848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ministry of Health and Welfare. 2018 Korea National Children’s Oral Health Survey. Available online: http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/jb/sjb030301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=03&MENU_ID=032901&CONT_SEQ=349651 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  22. Shin, H.; Cho, H.A.; Kim, B.R. Dental Expenditure by Household Income in Korea over the Period 2008–2017: A Review of the National Dental Insurance Reform. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 8, 3859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kim, H.K.; Song, S.O.; Noh, J.; Jeong, I.K.; Lee, B.W. Data configuration and publication trends for the Korean national health insurance and health insurance review & assessment database. Diabetes Metab. J. 2020, 44, 671–678. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. National Health Insurance Service. A Survey on Medical Costs for Health Insurance Patients in 2019. Available online: https://stat.kosis.kr/nsibsHtmlSvc/fileView/FileStbl/fileStblView.do?in_org_id=350&in_tbl_id=DT_350005_FILE2019&tab_yn=N&conn_path=E1 (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  25. Choi, J.S.; Jung, S.H. The impact of expanded national health insurance coverage of dentures and dental implants on dental care utilization among older adults in South Korea: A study based on the Korean health panel survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Shin, S.H. The trend of National Health Insurance dental treatment in the last 10 years. Health Insur. Rev. Assess. Service 2020, 14, 70–84. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ministry of Health and Welfare. Congenital Maxillofacial Deformity Orthodontic Treatment Expanded. Available online: http://www.mohw.go.kr/react/al/sal0301vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=04&MENU_ID=0403&page=1&CONT_SEQ=368040 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  28. Statistics Korea. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_2KAAC01_OECD (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  29. Shin, Y.S.; Yun, K.J.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, N.K.; Lim, J.W.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, J.H. Healthcare Workforce Survey; Ministry of Health and Welfare and Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs: Sejong, Korea, 2018; p. 97. [Google Scholar]
  30. Son, S.H.; Cho, H.J.; Kim, H.D. Estimation and adequacy of dentist supply through the dental care productivity. J. Kor. Dent. Assoc. 2020, 58, 68–82. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shin, H.; Hong, S.Y. The Supply and Demand for Dentists in Korea. Health Soc. Welf Rev. 2007, 27, 81–102. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, S.Y.; Cheon, J.Y. Improving Regional Health Care System in Korea; Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs: Sejong, Korea, 2010; p. 21. Available online: http://repository.kihasa.re.kr/handle/201002/5944 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  33. Korea Credit Information Services. Available online: http://www.kcredit.or.kr/info/cisReportList.do?page=3 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  34. Seo, N.K.; Moon, S.U.; Kang, T.W.; Oh, H.R.; Huh, S.L.; Kim, D.S.; Jung, S.H.; Oh, Y.H. A Report on the Korea Health Panel Survey of 2017; National Health Insurance Service: Sejong, Korea, 2017; pp. 13–14. Available online: https://www.khp.re.kr:444/web/research/board/view.do?bbsid=13&seq=1812 (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  35. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Request Method and Salary Standard Inquiry System. Available online: http://rulesvc.hira.or.kr/lmxsrv/law/lawFullContent.srv?SEQ=38&SEQ_HISTORY=168 (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  36. Förster, M.F.; D’Ercole, M.M. Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries in the Second Half of the 1990s; OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers: Paris, France, 2005; p. 22. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/34483698.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  37. Kim, S.M.; Ahn, E.; Shin, H. How does private health insurance affect dental care utilization? J. Korean Acad. Oral. Health 2014, 38, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Choi, J.W.; Choi, Y.; Lee, T.H.; Lee, H.J.; Ju, Y.J.; Park, E.C. Employment status and unmet dental care needs in South Korea: A population-based panel study. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e022436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Korea Informative Classification of Diseases. Korean Standard Classification of Diseases. Available online: https://www.koicd.kr/kcd/kcd.do?degree=08 (accessed on 19 December 2021).
  40. McKernan, S.C.; Reynolds, J.C.; Ingleshwar, A.; Pooley, M.; Kuthy, R.A.; Damiano, P.C. Transportation barriers and use of dental services among medicaid-insured adults. JDR Clin. Trans. Res. 2018, 3, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Allin, S.; Masseria, C.; Sorenson, C.; Papanicola, I.; Mossialos, E. Measuring inequalities in access to health care: A review of the indices. London Sch. Econ. Polit. Sci. 2007, pp. 1–24. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.6993&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 21 December 2021).
  42. Yiannakoulias, N.; Bland, W.; Svenson, L.W. Estimating the effect of turn penalties and traffic congestion on measuring spatial accessibility to primary health care. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 39, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liang, K.Y.; Zeger, S.L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986, 73, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zeger, S.L.; Liang, K.Y. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986, 42, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Zeger, S.L.; Liang, K.Y.; Albert, P.S. Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988, 44, 1049–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Zander, N.; Dukart, J.; van den Berg, N.; Augustin, J. Identifying Determinants for Traveled Distance and Bypassing in Outpatient Care: A Scoping Review. Inquiry 2019, 56, 0046958019865434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Varkevisser, M.; van der Geest, S.A.; Schut, F.T. Assessing hospital competition when prices don’t matter to patients: The use of time-elasticities. Int. J. Health Care Financ. Econ. 2010, 10, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Li, X.T.; Tang, Y.; Huang, X.L.; Wan, H.; Chen, Y.X. Factors influencing subjective orthodontic treatment need and culture-related differences among Chinese natives and foreign inhabitants. Int. J. Oral. Sci. 2010, 2, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Moshkelgosha, V.; Azar, H.; Golkari, A.; Azar, M.R. Utilization of orthodontic services in the Fars Province, Iran: The reasons people travel to the capital for orthodontic treatment. J. Dent. 2015, 16, 195. [Google Scholar]
  50. Su, O.J. A study on satisfaction of dental implant patients. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ryu, J.I.; Jeon, J.E. Utilization rate of dental implant for elderly in National Health Insurance in Korea. J. Kor. Dent. Assoc. 2019, 57, 496–503. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nash, K.D.; Brown, L.J. The market for dental services. J. Dent. Edu. 2012, 76, 973–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Probst, J.C.; Laditka, S.B.; Wang, J.; Johnson, A.O. Mode of Travel and Actual Distance Traveled for Medical or Dental Care by Rural and Urban Residents; South Carolina Rural Health Research Center: Columbia, SC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  54. Farlina, A.; Maharani, D.A. Barriers of utilisation of dental services among children and adolescent: A systematic review. Padjadjaran J. Dent. 2018, 30, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Lee, H.J.; Chang, K.W. Oral health literacy of Korean adults. J. Korean Acad. Oral. Health 2017, 41, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ray, K.N.; Chari, A.V.; Engberg, J.; Bertolet, M.; Mehrotra, A. Opportunity costs of ambulatory medical care in the United States. Am. J. Manag. Care 2015, 21, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Jean, G.; Kruger, E.; Tennant, M. Universal access to oral health care for Australian children: Comparison of travel times to public dental services at consecutive census dates as an indicator of progressive realisation. Aust. J. Prim. 2020, 26, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cao, S.; Gentili, M.; Griffin, P.M.; Griffin, S.O.; Serban, N. Peer Reviewed: Disparities in Preventive Dental Care among Children in Georgia. Prev. Chronic. Dis. 2017, 14, E104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Seo, H.; Lee, B.A.; Lim, H.; Yoon, J.H.; Kim, Y.T. The socioeconomic impact of Korean dental health insurance policy on the elderly: A nationwide cohort study in South Korea. J. Periodontal. Implant Sci. 2019, 49, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Donaldson, A.N.; Everitt, B.; Newton, T.; Steele, J.; Sherriff, M.; Bower, E. The effects of social class and dental attendance on oral health. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mejia, G.C.; Elani, H.W.; Harper, S.; Thomson, W.M.; Ju, X.; Kawachi, I.; Kaufman, J.S.; Jamieson, L.M. Socioeconomic status, oral health and dental disease in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. BMC Oral. Health 2018, 18, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Allison, R.A.; Manski, R.J. The supply of dentists and access to care in rural Kansas. J. Rural. Health 2007, 23, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Okunseri, C.; Vanevenhoven, R.; Chelius, T.; Beyer, K.M.; Okunseri, E.; Lobb, W.K.; Szabo, A. Travel distances by Wisconsin Medicaid enrollees who visit emergency departments for dental care. J. Public Health Dent. 2016, 76, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Jeon, H.S.; Choi, Y.K.; Kim, E.J.; Park, E.A.; Kim, M.S. A case report: Use of application-based self-oral-healthcare programs. Korean J. Clin. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 7, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jung, J.Y.; Kim, S.H. Analysis of oral health-related smartphone applications. J. Korean Soc. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 19, 493–502. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 02051 g001 550
Figure 1. The average frequency of total dental episode by income quintile.
Figure 1. The average frequency of total dental episode by income quintile.
Ijerph 19 02051 g001
Ijerph 19 02051 g002 550
Figure 2. Travel time according to income quintile by dental care service.
Figure 2. Travel time according to income quintile by dental care service.
Ijerph 19 02051 g002
Table
Table 1. Travel time of transportation mode, based on the type of dental treatment and patient characteristics.
Table 1. Travel time of transportation mode, based on the type of dental treatment and patient characteristics.
ItemsCategoriesFrequency
(n = 53,963)		Travel Time
by Walking
n = 25,895 (48.0) 		Travel Time
by Vehicle
n = 28,068 (52.0)
No. (%)Medianp-Value 3
Type of dental serviceNHI-covered 118,774 (34.8)3060<0.001
Denture and Fixed Bridge11,075 (20.5)60120
Gold Inlay and Resin Filling1792 (3.3)180330
Implant1590 (2.9)130270
Orthodontic9098 (16.9)60120
Tooth Whitening2342 (4.3)4080
Others9292 (17.2)80140
GenderMale24,279 (45.0)4090 <0.001
Female29,684 (55.0)50120
Age group<2014,244 (26.4)3660
20–6527,724 (51.4)60120
>6511,995 (22.2)80180
Marital statusMarried24,641(45.7)4080<0.001
Single29,322 (54.3)60120
Educational attainment≤Elementary19,363 (35.9)4090<0.001
Middle/High21,180 (39.2)60120
≥College13,420 (24.9)40100
JobNo24,698 (45.8)60140<0.001
Yes29,265 (54.2)4080
Private dental insuranceNo53,763 (99.6)421000.498
Yes200 (0.4)6090
Medical aid recipientsNo53,369 (98.9)40100<0.001
Yes594 (1.1)60190
Equivalence income 2Q1 (first quantile)—lowest9546 (17.7)60160<0.001
Q2 (second quantile)10,676 (19.8)50120
Q3 (third quantile)11,018 (20.4)4090
Q4 (fourth quantile)11,460 (21.2)4080
Q5 (fifth quantile)—highest11,263 (20.9)4090
Geographical region (n = 46,933)Large city district27,505 (58.6)42100<0.001
Rural counties5202 (11.1)60135
Small and medium-sized cities14,226 (30.3)4090
1 NHI-covered included dental episodes for NHI-covered dental services, such as conservative, periodontal, endodontic, extraction, and sealant care; 2 income unit (1000 KRW); 3 p-values were calculated by median test.
Table
Table 2. Results of GEE analysis, including variables associated with travel time.
Table 2. Results of GEE analysis, including variables associated with travel time.
ItemsCategoriesModel 1
(Travel Time by Vehicle)
n = 10,524 (Person)
28,068 (Episode)		Model 2
(Total Travel Time)
n = 16,256 (Person)
53,963 (Episode)		Model 3
(Total Travel Time)
n = 13,367 (Person)
46,933 (Episode)
Exp (Coef)p-ValueExp (Coef)p-ValueExp (Coef)p-Value
Type of dental services
(Ref. NHI-covered)		Denture and Fixed Bridge2.080.0002.190.0002.240.000
Gold Inlay and Resin Filling2.650.0002.970.0003.000.000
Implant3.220.0003.370.0003.370.000
Orthodontic2.230.0002.270.0002.260.000
Tooth Whitening1.690.0001.730.0001.770.000
Others1.930.0002.060.0002.090.000
Gender (Ref. Male)Female1.070.0451.040.1691.050.117
Age group
(Ref. 20–65) 		<200.570.0000.530.0000.550.000
>651.280.0001.330.0001.300.000
Marital status
(Ref. Married)		Single0.870.0010.900.0040.900.004
Educational attainment
(Ref. ≤ Elementary)		Middle/High1.270.0001.160.0001.220.000
≥College1.150.0221.060.2021.130.029
Job (Ref. No.)Yes0.840.0000.870.0000.870.000
Private dental insurance (Ref. No)Yes0.970.8681.180.2731.120.515
Medical aid recipients (Ref. No)Yes1.490.0011.450.0021.500.004
Equivalence income 1.000.0021.000.0031.000.007
Geographical region (Ref. Large city districts)Rural counties 1.380.000
Small and medium-sized cities1.020.428
NHI-covered included dental episodes for NHI-covered dental services, such as conservative, periodontal, endodontic, extraction, and sealant care; Ref. refers to the reference group for categorical variables; Exp (coef) refers to the exponential of the GEE coefficient; unit of equivalent income was 100,000 KRW.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cho, H.-A.; Kim, B.-R.; Shin, H. Travel Time for Dental Care Services Based on Patient Preference in South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042051

AMA Style

Cho H-A, Kim B-R, Shin H. Travel Time for Dental Care Services Based on Patient Preference in South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(4):2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cho, Han-A, Bo-Ra Kim, and Hosung Shin. 2022. "Travel Time for Dental Care Services Based on Patient Preference in South Korea" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 4: 2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042051

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