IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0317267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of orofacial clefts: Global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990–2019

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi
  • Erfan Shamsoddin
  • Sahar Khademioore
  • Yeganeh Khazaei
  • Amin Vahdati
  • Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone

Abstract

Background: Orofacial clefts are the most common craniofacial anomalies that include a variety of conditions affecting the lips and oral cavity. They remain a significant global public health challenge. Despite this, the quality of care for orofacial clefts has not been investigated at global and country levels. Objective: We aimed to measure the quality-of-care index (QCI) for orofacial clefts worldwide. Methods: We used the 2019 Global Burden of Disease data to create a multifactorial index (QCI) to assess orofacial clefts globally and nationally. By utilizing data on incidence, prevalence, years of life lost, and years lived with disability, we defined four ratios to indirectly reflect the quality of healthcare. Subsequently, we conducted a principal component analysis to identify the most critical variables that could account for the observed variability. The outcome of this analysis was defined as the QCI for orofacial clefts. Following this, we tracked the QCI trends among males and females worldwide across various regions and countries, considering factors such as the socio-demographic index and World Bank classifications. Results: Globally, the QCI for orofacial clefts exhibited a consistent upward trend from 1990 to 2019 (66.4 to 90.2) overall and for females (82.9 to 94.3) and males (72.8 to 93.6). In the year 2019, the top five countries with the highest QCI scores were as follows: Norway (QCI = 99.9), Ireland (99.4), France (99.4), Germany (99.3), the Netherlands (99.3), and Malta (99.3). Conversely, the five countries with the lowest QCI scores on a global scale in 2019 were Somalia (59.1), Niger (67.6), Burkina Faso (72.6), Ethiopia (73.0), and Mali (74.4). Gender difference showed a converging trend from 1990 to 2019 (optimal gender disparity ratio (GDR): 123 vs. 163 countries), and the GDR showed a move toward optimization (between 0.95 and 1.05) in the better and worse parts of the world. Conclusion: Despite the positive results regarding the QCI for orofacial clefts worldwide, some countries showed a slight negative trend.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi & Erfan Shamsoddin & Sahar Khademioore & Yeganeh Khazaei & Amin Vahdati & Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone, 2025. "Global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of orofacial clefts: Global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990–2019," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317267
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317267
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317267&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0317267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317267. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.