Back to all available

Comparative assessment of access and barriers to dental care among Individuals with and without developmental delays in Jordan

dentistry
epidemiology
public-health
healthcare-services

Abstract

Background: Oral health is an important component of overall well-being, yet individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) often experience significant challenges in accessing appropriate dental care. In Jordan, limited research has addressed these disparities, highlighting the need for a focused investigation.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the utilization of dental services among individuals with IDD in Jordan and to identify key barriers affecting their access to dental care, compared to individuals without IDD.

Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted among 317 participants, comprising 168 individuals with IDD and 149 individuals without IDD. A validated, self-designed, closed-ended questionnaire designed to gather data on dental service usage, reasons for dental visits, and perceived barriers to accessing care. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit participants from centers associated with IDD. Data were analyzed using SPSS® version 22, with a significance level set at P < 0.05. Chi-square tests and contingency table analyses assessed group differences.

Results: Reported barriers included lengthy wait times, high treatment costs, inconvenient clinic hours, embarrassment, lack of specialized dental staff, limited provider knowledge on treating individuals with disabilities, and inadequate facilities (P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups regarding lack of dental insurance or dental anxiety (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: This study confirmed the presence of socioeconomic disparities in the utilization of dental services among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), alongside multiple barriers to accessing care. The findings identified the most commonly perceived obstacles to oral health services among individuals with IDD, providing valuable insights for the development of targeted health policies aimed at improving access to dental care and reducing oral health inequalities in this vulnerable population.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].