JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Dent Educ. 66(12): 1348-1357 2002
© 2002 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Atchison, K.
Right arrow Articles by Engelhardt, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Atchison, K.
Right arrow Articles by Engelhardt, R
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 66, Issue 12, 1348-1357
Copyright © 2002 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

PGD training and its impact on general dentist practice patterns

KA Atchison, RS Mito, DJ Rosenberg, KH Lefever, S Lin, and R Engelhardt

This study compares the practice patterns of general dentists with and without formal advanced training in AGED or GPR programs. The UCLA School of Dentistry surveyed a random selection of dentists from graduating years 1989, 1993, and 1997 as part of a Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA)-supported evaluation of the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentistry (PGD) programs. Using a sample drawn by the American Dental Association (ADA), 6,725 dentists were surveyed about their practice, advanced training, patients served, and services provided. Of the 2,029 dentists (30 percent) who responded, 49 percent were practicing dentists with no formal advanced training in general dentistry or one of the eight ADA specialties; 7 percent had Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) experience; 20 percent trained in a General Practice Residency (GPR); and 24 percent were specialists. Additionally, 7 percent of respondents had PGD training and a clinical specialty. GPR-trained dentists were significantly more likely to be on a hospital staff and to treat medically compromised patients even after ten years of practice. PGD dentists were less likely to seek specialty training. Major reasons for seeking PGD training were increasing treatment speed, learning to treat medically compromised patients, and wanting hospital experience. Primary reasons for not selecting training were starting a practice and having a great practice opportunity. Our conclusion is that PGD training has an enduring impact on practice patterns and improves access to dental care for underserved populations.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
T. A. Dolan, K. Atchison, and T. N. Huynh
Access to Dental Care Among Older Adults in the United States
J Dent Educ., September 1, 2005; 69(9): 961 - 974.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Dental Education Association.