Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

How much do consumers consider sustainability when purchasing a toothbrush? A discrete choice experiment

British Dental Journal volume 233, pages 327–332 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction A recent resurgence of sustainability in healthcare has resulted in huge progress towards more 'eco-aware' products and their incorporation into everyday life, with home oral hygiene products being not far behind. However, it is unclear which components of sustainability consumers value or how much they are willing to pay for these.

Aim To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate preferences for attributes such as recyclable handle materials and recyclable packaging of low-cost disposable manual toothbrushes, along with the willingness to pay (WTP) for said attributes.

Methods Design and implementation of the DCE were informed by best practice guidelines. A multi-method approach was used for attribute identification and refinement. Participants were recruited through an online survey platform. Conditional logistic regression model was used to estimate participant preferences for the attributes. WTP for attributes was estimated using the ratio of the coefficient of a given attribute level to the product cost coefficient.

Results A total of 326 participants took part in the survey, of which 169 were women (52%). The median age was 35 years of age. The three most influential attributes were: bamboo handles (= 0.486 and WTP = £4.85 [€5.79]), recyclable plastic handles (= 0.338, WTP = £3.37 [€4.02]) and recyclable packaging (= 0.191,WTP = £2.32 [€2.77]).

Conclusion Sustainable attributes dominated consumer preference when considering the purchase of a manual disposable toothbrush. This could perhaps be due to new environmental initiatives from influential oral hygiene companies or activism.

Key points

  • This paper quantified and monetised consumer preference for sustainable oral hygiene products using the example of a manual toothbrush.

  • This paper showcases the public's basic understanding of sustainability within dentistry and how patient involvement can play a large role in the next step towards a greener dental sector.

  • This paper shows the reader that in order to create a more sustainable dental sector, a multifaceted approach is needed and one should not overlook even the most rudimentary concepts (ie consumer knowledge and preference when purchasing a toothbrush).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sharda A, Sharda J. Factors influencing the choice of oral hygiene products used among the population of Udaipur, India. Int J Dent Clinics 2010; 2: 7-12.

  2. Agrawal A, Gupta A. Exploring the factors influencing the choice of oral care products: A review on personalized approach. Int J Oral Dent Health 2020; 6: 109.

  3. Gotjamanos T, Singh H, Strangio T. Choice of toothbrush: a survey of dentists' personal preferences and recommendations for patients. Aust Dent J 1992; 37: 290-295.

  4. Tirapelli C, de Carvalho J F, Ribas J P, Panzeri H. Dental plaque removal efficacy of three toothbrushes with different designs: A comparative analysis. Oral Health Prev Dent 2006; 4: 105-111.

  5. Yaacob M, Worthington H V, Deacon S A et al. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub3.

  6. Lyne A, Ashley P, Saget S, Costa M P, Underwood B, Duane B. Combining evidence-based healthcare with environmental sustainability: Using the toothbrush as a model. Br Dent J 2020; 229: 303-309.

  7. Vani G, Ganesh B, Panchanatham N. Consumer buying behaviour: the controllable & uncontrollables. Int J Exclusive Manage Res 2011; 1: 1-12.

  8. Kote S, Dadu M, Sowmya A R, Ds A, Arora D. Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour for Choosing Oral Hygiene Aids Among Students of Management Institutes, Ghaziabad, India. West Indian Med J 2013; 62: 758-763.

  9. Lindhe J, Lang N P. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Volume 2. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.

  10. Balasubramaniam A, Diwakar M K P, Brinda B. Factors influencing selection of manual toothbrush among an urban population in Chennai City, India: A cross-sectional study. J Indian Assoc Pub Health Dent 2017; 15: 388.

  11. Chong M P, Beech D. Characteristics of toothbrushes. Aust Dent J 1983; 28: 202-211.

  12. European Commission. Europeans' attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production. 2009. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/FL256_analytical%20report_final.pdf (accessed August 2022).

  13. Grankvist G, Johnsen S Å K, Hanss D. Values and willingness-to-pay for sustainability-certified mobile phones. Int J Sustain Develop World Ecol 2019; 26: 657-664.

  14. Schäufele I, Hamm U. Consumers' perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J Clean Prod 2017; 147: 379-394.

  15. Luchs M G, Kumar M. "Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better": How Do Consumers Respond to Trade-Offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes? J Bus Ethics 2017; 140: 567-584.

  16. NHS England. Delivering a 'Net Zero' National Health Service. 2020. Available at https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/publication/delivering-a-net-zero-national-health-service/ (accessed August 2022).

  17. Ireland Citizens Information. Supports for businesses going green. 2021. Available at https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/self_employment/supports_for_businesses_going_green.html (accessed August 2022).

  18. Mangham L J, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009; 24: 151-158.

  19. Clark M D, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob E W. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32: 883-902.

  20. Bateman I J, Carson R T, Day B et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002.

  21. Bridges J F P, Hauber A B, Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 2011; 14: 403-413.

  22. Johnson F R, Lancsar E, Marshall D et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013; 16: 3-13.

  23. Helter T M, Boehler C E H. Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions. J Subst Use 2016; 21: 662-668.

  24. Barber S, Bekker H, Marti J, Pavitt S, Khambay B, Meads D. Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (Dce) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment. Patient 2019; 12: 137-148.

  25. Sever I, Verbič M, Sever E K. Estimating willingness-to-pay for health care: A discrete choice experiment accounting for non-attendance to the cost attribute. J Eval Clin Pract 2019; 25: 843-849.

  26. Janssen E M, Segal J B, Bridges J F P. A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes. Patient 2016; 9: 465-479.

  27. Trinity College Dublin. School of Dental Science Ethics Application. Available at https://www.tcd.ie/dental/research/research-ethics (accessed August 2022).

  28. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton E J et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: Issues and recommendations. Health Econ 2012; 21: 730-741.

  29. Prosser L A. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19: 298-299.

  30. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC, 2017.

  31. Bounce Insights. Available at https://bounceinsights.com/ (accessed August 2022).

  32. Leichter J, Pack A R. The attitudes of New Zealand dentists and dental hygienists towards toothbrushes and toothbrushing. J N Z Soc Periodontol 1999; 84: 14-17.

  33. Ranzan N, Muniz F W M G, Rösing C K. Are bristle stiffness and bristle end-shape related to adverse effects on soft tissues during toothbrushing? A systematic review. Int Dent J 2019; 69: 171-182.

  34. Zimmer S, Öztürk M, Barthel C R, Bizhang M, Jordan R A. Cleaning efficacy and soft tissue trauma after use of manual toothbrushes with different bristle stiffness. J Periodontol 2011; 82: 267-271.

  35. Iwakami K, Watanabe Y. Gingival response by the effect of brushing method and hardness of the toothbrush bristle. Meikai Daigaku Shigaku Zasshi 1989; 18: 244-266.

  36. Niemi M L, Sandholm L, Ainamo J. Frequency of gingival lesions after standardized brushing as related to stiffness of toothbrush and abrasiveness of dentifrice. J Clin Periodontol 1984; 11: 254-261.

  37. Colgate-Palmolive. Our 2020 Progress - Planet. Available at https://www.colgatepalmolive.com/en-us/core-values/sustainability/planet#climate-resilience (accessed March 2021).

  38. Duane B, Ashley P, Saget S, Richards D, Pasdeki-Clewer E, Lyne A. Incorporating sustainability into assessment of oral health interventions. Br Dent J 2020; 229: 310-314.

  39. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 55-64.

  40. Strong B. Plastic pollution and dentistry. Dent Nurs 2018; 14: 428-429.

  41. Hovliaras C, Gatzemeyer J, Jimenez E, Panagakos F S. Ergonomics and toothbrushes. J Clin Dent 2015; 26: 28-32.

  42. Deacon S A, Glenny A-M, Deery C et al. Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004971.pub2.

  43. Waldron C, Nunn J, Phadraig C M G et al. Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012628.pub2.

  44. Robinson P G, Deacon S A, Deery C et al. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub2.

Download references

Funding

This study was supported and funded by the Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

    Ciara Halton, Brett Duane, Amelia Conlon Batey, Jia Wong, Aisling Corley, Fraser Hart & Jay Koh

  2. Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland; School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

    Bridget Johnston

Authors
  1. Ciara Halton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brett Duane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amelia Conlon Batey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jia Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aisling Corley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fraser Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jay Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bridget Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ciara Halton and Amelia Conlon Batey contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript. Bridget Johnston performed the analytic calculations and performed the numerical simulations and supervised the project along with Brett Duane. Ciara Halton took the lead in writing the manuscript, while Amelia Conlon Batey, Bridget Johnston and Brett Duane provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and manuscript. Fraser Hart, Jia Wong, Aisling Corley and Jay Koh contributed to the design and implementation of the research and analysis of results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ciara Halton.

Ethics declarations

All named authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Ethical approval for this research was submitted and approved through the Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin's Research Ethics Committee. Participant decision to participate was voluntary and consent could be withdrawn at any point during the survey.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halton, C., Duane, B., Batey, A. et al. How much do consumers consider sustainability when purchasing a toothbrush? A discrete choice experiment. Br Dent J 233, 327–332 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4914-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4914-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links