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


     


J Dent Educ. 66(6): 757-765 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 Mito, R.
Right arrow Articles by Engelhardt, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mito, R.
Right arrow Articles by Engelhardt, R
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 66, Issue 6, 757-765
Copyright © 2002 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

Characteristics of civilian postdoctoral general dentistry programs

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

U.S. civilian (non-VA/non-military) Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and General Practice Residency (GPR) programs were identified (n=208) and surveyed. The assessment evaluated infrastructure support, populations served, services provided, and trainee stipends. One hundred thirty-one programs responded (thirty-two AEGD, 64 percent/ninety-nine GPR, 63 percent). Sixty-nine programs were HRSA-funded (53 percent), and sixty-three (47 percent) were nonfunded. One hundred and five responses identified hospital/medical center resources; fifty-six indicated dental school support. Mean faculty support was similar regardless of program type or HRSA funding. Mean first-year positions in AEGDs were greater than GPRs. Mean first-year GPR positions were greater in funded than in nonfunded programs. A comparison of AEGD and GPR programs showed that residents in GPRs treated more children, medically intensive, economically/socially disadvantaged, and in-patient/same-day surgery patients (p<0.05). Residents in AEGDs treated more healthy adults (p<0.05). GPRs treated more lower fee (no pay, Medicaid, welfare/general relief, Medicare, and capitation/HMO) patients. AEGDs treated more insurance/private pay patients (p=.0001). No differences existed in comprehensive care and emergency visits between AEGDs and GPRs. GPRs treated more hospital-based patients. The mean stipends for GPRs ($32,055) and AEGDs ($22,403) were different.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
L. M. NEUMANN
Trends in dental and allied dental education
J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2004; 135(9): 1253 - 1259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




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