Dental faculty shortage in the United States and Canada: are there solutions?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over the past several decades, many orthodontic teaching positions have remained unfilled and, despite many efforts, the situation doesn’t seem to change. Currently, there is a need for approximately 300 dental faculty.1 Many of these positions have been open for years and the shortage has reached crisis proportions. To solve this problem, the implicit and explicit requirements regarding hiring and retention of those in dental teaching positions must change. If no one fills these positions, dental programs will not be able to train future dentists properly and public health will suffer. The problem is not only to fill the current open positions, but also to address future needs.2 Most dental faculty are in their 50s and 60s and succession plans seldom exist.3–5 According to estimates, approximately 210 new full-time dental faculty will be needed each year just to maintain current numbers in the United States (6,400 full-time equivalent positions).6–8 In addition to retiring, faculty are also abandoning educational careers to pursue private practice2,8,9 or are planning to do so in the future.10 The reasons are primarily work-related and not necessarily exclusively economic.2,9–11 Currently, part-time faculty are responsible for a large proportion of the duties that were previously carried out by full-time staff.6,8,10 This may be a provisional solution, although disadvantages may include lack of staff involvement in the teaching process. Why are Canadian and American dentists not filling these positions? Among the most important reasons are low salaries compared with private practice earnings; the inability to practise outside the university to supplement income; and the requirements (PhD and expertise in attracting grants) for successful tenure.4,12–14 Several solutions have been proposed.5 For most dental graduates, the decision to enter academia is difficult because of the need to repay the large loans they needed to support their education.6 If more training stipends6,15 were available, student loans would be considerably lower. Salary support is also very important in retaining faculty.10 Other proposed solutions include allowing greater flexibility in moving through academic ranks and making special adjustments for dentistry7,8,16,17; with help from the professional organizations, making academia more attractive to potential immigrants4,15,18; following the medical model,4 whereby faculty can supplement their salary through practices in the school clinics; using federal stipends to subsidize dental training on the condition that the student enters academia for a number of years2,15; temporarily changing the rules to allow foreign-qualified academics to fill the gaps4; soliciting funds from dental graduates to support faculty salaries at their alma mater; and supplementing Dr. Flores-Mir Email: carlosflores@ ualberta.ca �ontact ��uthor Dental Faculty Shortage in the United States and Canada: Are There Solutions?
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».