Workforce Planning Models for Oral Health Care: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For health care services to address the health care needs of populations and respond to changes in needs over time, workforces must be planned. This requires quantitative models to estimate future workforce requirements that take account of population size, oral health needs, evidence-based approaches to addressing needs, and methods of service provision that maximize productivity. The aim of this scoping review was to assess whether and how these 4 elements contribute to existing models of oral health workforce planning. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, HMIC, and EconLit were searched, all via OVID. Additionally, gray literature databases were searched and key bodies and policy makers contacted. Workforce planning models were included if they projected workforce numbers and were specific to oral health. No limits were placed on country. A single reviewer completed initial screening of abstracts; 2 independent reviewers completed secondary screening and data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 4,009 records were screened, resulting in 42 included articles detailing 47 models. The workforce planning models varied significantly in their use of data on oral health needs, evidence-based services, and provider productivity, with most models relying on observed levels of service utilization and demand. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified quantitative workforce planning models that aim to estimate future workforce requirements. Approaches to planning the oral health workforce are not always based on deriving workforce requirements from population oral health needs. In many cases, requirements are not linked to population needs, while in models where needs are included, they are constrained by the existence and availability of the required data. It is critical that information systems be developed to effectively capture data necessary to plan future oral health care workforces in ways that relate directly to the needs of the populations being served. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Policy makers can use the results of this study when making decisions about the planning of oral health care workforces and about the data to routinely collect within health services. Collection of suitable data will allow for the continual improvement of workforce planning, leading to a responsive health service and likely future cost savings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".