Investigation into the enablers and barriers of career satisfaction among Australian oral health therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study explored the enablers and barriers of career satisfaction among Australian oral health therapists (OHTs) and the reasons behind career changes. METHODS: Participants were recruited in 2 ways: 1) recruitment posts were made on the Facebook pages of two professional groups; and 2) an email was sent to the Doctor of Dental Medicine students of the University of Sydney School of Dentistry, inviting those with OHT qualifications to participate. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview which was guided by open-ended questions. The average interview length was 45 min. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and manually coded. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was completed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Twenty-one OHTs participated in this study. The enablers of OHT career satisfaction include clinical practice, job variety, career flexibility, being in a supportive team environment and the opportunity for constant learning and growth. The barriers to career satisfaction include musculoskeletal problems, restrictions on the scope of practice use, psychological stress and lack of recognition from others. OHTs remain in the profession due to stable income and employment opportunities. The main reasons for retirement were burnout and pursuing dentistry. OHTs pursue dentistry to expand their scope of practice. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the enablers and barriers of OHT career satisfaction in an Australian context. OHTs are an important component of modern dental workforces, and reasons for attrition within the workforce are essential for maintaining responsiveness to community oral health needs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".