Search

Careers in academic dentistry are failing to attract a new generation of academics to steer dental education and research. Dental academia is further limited by inadequacies in levels of ethnic diversity. There is a stark contrast between the diversity of graduates entering the dental profession and those in academic positions, especially in senior ranks. Dentistry is not the only field in academia, which lacks representation and lessons may be drawn from other faculties. This paper focuses on what is known about dental academia in the United Kingdom, where there are formal research training pathways. There is an emerging recognition of the requirement for action, and it is hoped this will stimulate debate and impetus for research across Europe. The terminology used throughout this piece follows the United Kingdom Cabinet Office recommendations for writing about ethnicity (Writing about ethnicity, 2021; https://www.ethnicity‐facts‐figures.service.gov.uk/style‐guide/writing‐about‐ethnicity). Where cited sources have employed less acceptable terms (Please don't call me BAME or BME!: Civil service, 2019; https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2019/07/08/please‐dont‐call‐me‐bame‐or‐bme/), these have been changed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 15 million people in the UK live with obesity, around 5 million of whom have severe obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35kg/m2). Having severe obesity markedly compromises health, well-being and quality of life, and substantially reduces life expectancy. These adverse outcomes are prevented or ameliorated by weight loss, for which sustained behavioural change is the cornerstone of treatment. Although NHS specialist 'Tier 3' Weight Management Services (T3WMS) support people with severe obesity, using individual and group-based treatment, the current evidence on optimal intervention design and outcomes is limited. Due to heterogeneity of severe obesity, there is a need to tailor treatment to address individual needs. Despite this heterogeneity, there are good reasons to suspect that a structured group-based behavioural intervention may be more effective and cost-effective for the treatment of severe obesity compared to usual care. The aims of this study are to test the feasibility of establishing and delivering a multi-centre randomised controlled clinical trial to compare a group-based behavioural intervention versus usual care in people with severe obesity. Methods: This feasibility randomised controlled study is a partially clustered multi-centre trial of PROGROUP (a novel group-based behavioural intervention) versus usual care. Adults ≥18 years of age who have been newly referred to and accepted by NHS T3WMS will be eligible if they have a BMI ≥40, or ≥35 kg/m2 with comorbidity, are suitable for group-based care and are willing to be randomised. Exclusion criteria are participation in another weight management study, planned bariatric surgery during the trial, and unwillingness or inability to attend group sessions. Outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation and success of blinding will be evaluated. Clinical measures will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be self-reported and collected remotely. Process and economic evaluations will be conducted. Discussion: This randomised feasibility study has been designed to test all the required research procedures and additionally explore three key issues; the feasibility of implementing a complex trial at participating NHS T3WMS, training the multidisciplinary healthcare teams in a standard intervention, and the acceptability of a group intervention for these particularly complex patients. Trial registration: ISRCTN number 22088800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and conceptualize the barriers and enablers to accessing dental services for people experiencing homelessness in the United Kingdom. Methods: A literature search for studies relevant to homelessness and dental care was conducted. The PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines were followed. Electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, DOSS, CINAHL, SOCINDEX and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources (Electronic Theses Online Service – EThOS, Kings Fund, NICE Evidence, Open Grey, Google and the Health Foundation) were searched up to 28 August 2018. The critical appraisal was conducted using CASP and an adjusted version of a JBI Critical Appraisal tool. Thematic analysis was used to develop the themes and domains. Results: Twenty‐eight papers were included. Barriers to homeless people accessing dental care stemmed both from the lived experience of homelessness and the healthcare system. Within homelessness, the themes identified included complexity, emotions and knowledge. Regarding the healthcare system, identified themes included staff encounter, accessibility and organization issues. Conclusion: Homelessness can actively contribute to both an increased need for dental care and barriers to accessing that care. The arrangement of dental healthcare services can also act as barriers to care. This is the first systematic review to conceptualize the factors associated with access to dental care for people who are homeless. It provides a set of recommendations for overcoming the main barriers for homeless people to accessing dental care. It also offers directions for future research, policy and commissioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The resource needs of health services are served by the recognition of qualifications across borders which allows professionals to migrate between countries. The movement of dentists across the European Union (EU), especially into the United Kingdom (UK), has provided a valuable boost to workforce supply. Recent changes to policy recognising overseas qualifications have brought attention to the equivalence of qualifications awarded in EU countries. Professional regulators need to be confident that dentists who qualified elsewhere have the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to practise safely and effectively. The aim of this study was to compare UK and EU dental curricula, identify any differences, and compare the extent of pre-qualification clinical experience., Methods: This was a mixed methods study comprising a questionnaire and website searches to identify information about curricula, competences, and quality assurance arrangements in each country. The questionnaire was sent to organisations responsible for regulating dental education or dental practice in EU member states. This was supplemented with information obtained from website searches of stakeholder organisations for each country including regulators, professional associations, ministries, and providers of dental education. A map of dental training across the EU was created., Results: National learning outcomes for dental education were identified for seven countries. No national outcomes were identified 13 countries; therefore, learning outcomes were mapped at institution level only. No information about learning outcomes was available for six countries. In one country, there is no basic dental training. Clinical skills and communication were generally well represented. Management and leadership were less represented. Only eight countries referenced a need for graduates to be aware of their own limitations. In most countries, quality assurance of dental education is not undertaken by dental organisations, but by national quality assurance agencies for higher education. In many cases, it was not possible to ascertain the extent of graduates' direct clinical experience with patients., Conclusions: The findings demonstrate considerable variation in learning outcomes for dental education between countries and institutions in Europe. This presents a challenge to decision-makers responsible for national recognition and accreditation of diverse qualifications across Europe to maintain a safe, capable, international workforce; but one that this comparison of programmes helps to address., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: It is important that allied health professionals (AHPs) are prepared for clinical practice from the very start of their working lives to provide quality care for patients, for their personal well-being and for retention of the workforce. The aim of this study was to understand how well newly qualified AHPs were prepared for practice in the UK., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC and BEI were searched from 2012 to 2024. Grey literature searching and citation chasing were also conducted., Eligibility Criteria: We included primary studies reporting the preparedness for practice of UK graduates across 15 professions; all study types; participants included graduates who were up to 2 years postgraduation, their supervisors, trainers, practice educators and employers; and all outcome measures., Data Extraction and Synthesis: A standardised data extraction form was used. Studies were quality assessed using the Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies tool. 10% of articles were independently double-screened, extracted and quality assessed; 90% was completed by one researcher., Results: 14 reports were included (9 qualitative, 3 mixed-method and 2 quantitative). Six papers focused on radiographers, three on a mixture of professions, two on paramedics, and one each on physiotherapists, clinical psychologists and orthotists. An important finding of the review is the paucity and low-medium quality of research on the topic. The narrative synthesis tentatively suggests that graduates are adequately prepared for practice with different professions having different strengths and weaknesses. Common areas of underpreparedness across the professions were responsibility and decision-making, leadership and research. Graduates were generally well prepared in terms of their knowledge base., Conclusion: High-quality in-depth research is urgently needed across AHPs to elucidate the specific roles, their nuances and the areas of underpreparedness. Further work is also needed to understand the transition into early clinical practice, ongoing learning opportunities through work, and the supervision and support structures in place., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022382065., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The precarious state of NHS dentistry is widely acknowledged, yet there is limited progress in addressing the underlying issues. Further delays will undoubtedly impact patient care, leading to oral health deterioration and unnecessary suffering. This will predominantly affect the most vulnerable in society, resulting in greater oral health inequalities.The underlying issues contributing to the current NHS dental crisis are many, and they include: prolonged delays in contract reform; long-term underinvestment; private sector growth; and fewer dentists working full-time and/or in the NHS. In England, an NHS dental contract that fails to promote prevention or equality of access continues to have a deep and pernicious impact on the future of NHS dentistry. The devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access cannot be underestimated and neither should the effect of Brexit on the availability of workforce.The recruitment and retention of dentists, and other members of the dental team, is undoubtedly a major issue in terms of capacity and access to NHS dental care. These problems, seen across the UK, are a particular issue in England, with acute challenges within rural and coastal areas.There is an urgent necessity to develop coherent, multifaceted strategies, aided by the collection of clear and accurate workforce data, to tackle these issues., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the British Dental Association.)