Zoe Freeman

Introduction: Dental caries is multifaceted and requires dental undergraduates to receive training in underlying science, risk factors, disease prevention, and treatment. Caries content features at many different points in a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) programme, making it a large task to consolidate and assimilate in clinical practice. The study aim is to investigate how effective a collaborative educational intervention is in consolidating taught content on dental caries and integrating related clinical experience through co‐construction. Methods: A collaborative idea generation tool was adapted using social constructivist principles as an educational intervention to consolidate and co‐construct pre‐clinical and early clinical caries content. Students visit a series of tables, answering questions through divergent thinking around aspects of caries. A qualitative study aligned to utilisation focused evaluation was conducted through four focus groups: two with students who recently received the intervention, and two with final‐year students. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis generated themes: Consolidation and co‐construction of knowledge of caries; Learning opportunities within Caries Café, Delivery of Caries Café, and Improvements to Caries Café. The café promoted collective working, while permitting individuals to ask questions. Overall confidence in caries identification increased, but further clinical reference is preferred by students for potential longer‐term benefits. Conclusion: The Café format served as a method to consolidate and co‐construct caries knowledge in a programme where content is dispersed and experiences varied. It provided holistic exposure to a multi‐faceted subject, with question topics aligned to domains of a proposed standardised caries curriculum.

Background: Social accountability relates to the obligation of a health professional school to align education, research, and services with community health priorities. Limited research has examined the role of social accountability in dental education and its potential for addressing oral health inequalities. Aim: The aim of this narrative review is to describe current research of relevance to social accountability in dental education and identify gaps in the literature. Method: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, using the terms “social accountability”, “social responsibility”, and “dental education” was undertaken. Articles included in the review were those published between January 1995 and May 2024 which were related to dental professional education and deemed relevant to social accountability. Results and conclusions: Four themes of relevance to social accountability were identified in the literature (curriculum design and delivery, attitudes, social responsiveness, and cultural competence). This review highlights challenges in measuring the community impact of socially accountable approaches in dental education. There is a need for more longitudinal research to assess the long-term impacts of social accountability in dental education. There are also potential implications for policy and research to influence the working environment of dental graduates to enable and support the workforce to apply and embed social accountability in the practice of dentistry.

Introduction: Diversity is known to be important but diversity of dental school academics in the UK and Ireland is low in comparison with the dental profession and the overall population. The aims were to explore whether UK and Ireland dental school academics are satisfied with their career progression, whether they believe that there are barriers to career progression in dental schools based on protected characteristics, and experience of discrimination at work. Methods: An online survey, including four free-text questions related to the study aims, was circulated by Dental Schools Council to dental academics at all UK and Ireland dental schools. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse free-text comments. Results and discussion: There were 192 responses from 20 dental schools. Five data categories were constructed which highlight the impact of discrimination in dental academia, the importance of opportunities and support, different perspectives of diversity and discrimination, and academic and institutional culture. Conclusion: Staff perceived and experienced barriers to career progression. Many were satisfied with their career progression, but a proportion of staff expressed dissatisfaction and attributed this to discrimination based upon protected characteristics. The culture in dental schools is beginning to change to address factors contributing to inequality in dental academia.

IntroductionDiversity is known to be important but diversity of staff working in dental schools in the UK and Ireland is low in comparison with the dental profession and the overall population. AimsTo provide a detailed snapshot of the diversity of dental academic staff in 2021 including staff working in academic and clinical roles.MethodsAn online survey was circulated to dental schools by Dental Schools Council. Questions included dates of graduation and key career milestones, demographics and indicators of esteem. Free text questions were also included.ResultsThere was a high degree of variability in dental academic careers which made direct comparisons difficult. Neither gender nor race appeared to be associated with a faster career progression. Females and those of racialised minority were less represented at the most senior grades. For those who had completed specialty training, racialised minority staff were far less likely to be working at consultant grade than their White equivalents.ConclusionThere are differences in career progression between staff in dental schools. The high amount of individual variability makes these difficult to quantify except at the most senior positions. Qualitative information is needed to contextualise the results and provide additional information.

Introduction Feedback can enhance learning and is thought to be highly valued by students, however it is not clear from the literature how dental students actually use feedback. Aim This study aimed to explore how dental students use feedback in a variety of contexts. Methods Qualitative methods involving audio recorded focus groups were used to explore the use of feedback by undergraduate dental students studying at three UK dental schools. A purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure diverse representation across the undergraduate dental programmes in each of the schools. Results Six focus groups, involving a total of 72 students, were undertaken. Thematic analysis identified 6 main themes relating to the use of feedback; value, future applicability, accessibility, credibility, learner stance and understanding. The inter‐connectivity and interaction of the themes (along with their sub themes) were used to develop a model for optimising feedback with the aim of enhancing its potential use by students. Conclusion The use of feedback by students would appear to be strongly influenced by several factors. Understanding these factors and how they interlink may be helpful to education providers who are seeking to optimise their feedback processes.

Introduction In order to achieve the educational standards of the General Dental Council, providers of UK dental education programmes are required to demonstrate that feedback from patients is collected and used to inform programme development. Aims To determine areas of undergraduate dental training programmes that patients feel able to comment upon, allowing development of a patient feedback questionnaire. Methods Patients receiving treatment from undergraduate students were recruited to focus groups (n = 5, n = 6) where their experience of receiving student care was explored. Audio transcriptions were analysed for emergent themes. These themes informed the design of a questionnaire which was presented to a further patient focus group (n = 4) for content and face validity testing. Staff (n = 4) and student (n = 8) focus groups discussed its delivery. Results Patients were able to comment upon treatment quality, safety, the student-teacher interaction, and appointment times. An 18-question questionnaire was developed to include free text comments and answers on a visual analogue scale. It was modified following focus groups with patients, staff, and students. Conclusion Patients undergoing student treatment identified aspects of the clinical teaching programme that could be included in a feedback questionnaire. Following a pilot, the questionnaire will form part of the teaching quality assurance process.