Search

Introduction: Oral health professional (OHP) education is likely to vary across Europe in accordance with an EU directive that is open to broad interpretation. It is not clear how OHP curricula are structured or delivered across Europe. The objectives of Part 2 of this paper series are: (i) to provide an overview of common practices in curriculum structure, the availability of facilities, staffing (faculty) and quality assurance processes and (ii) to consider how the existing programme structures align to stakeholder guidance documents. Methods: A total of 27 questions from a 91‐item questionnaire were used for this manuscript. The questionnaire was developed following the Delphi method to establish consensus from a group of experts. Members of the research team and colleagues from other countries in Europe completed a multi‐step piloting process. An online data hub was created to allow the respondents to be data controllers and respond to the questionnaire. ADEE member schools (n = 144) were invited to provide data. Results: Totally, 71 institutions from 25 European countries provided data between June 2021 and April 2023, which represents a response rate of 49.3% of ADEE members. Data on curriculum approaches, teaching methods, integration of topics of interest, clinical education, staff–student ratios, access to facilities and new technologies, teaching staff (faculty) and quality assurance processes are presented for Primary Dental Degree Programmes. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this series of papers are the first attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of OHP education in Europe. Results showed that the majority of European dental programmes are engaged in providing innovative and scientifically grounded education in order to develop quality future OHPs. Nevertheless, significant variability in the delivery of clinical education across the European OHP schools was notable in this dataset. A comprehensive view of the state of OHP education in Europe is not yet available but the O‐Health‐Edu data hub provides a means for all education providers in Europe to contribute data to reach this goal. It is anticipated that the data hub will be updated and built upon over time to continually establish a clearer picture of the state of OHP education in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Current legislation leaves Oral Health Professional (OHP) education open to wide interpretation and may result in significant variation in educational practice and resultant professional attributes across Europe. Data regarding the current state of OHP education across Europe is limited. The aim of Part 1 of this series is to provide programme‐level data for Primary Dental Degree Programmes, Dental Hygiene and Postgraduate Education. Methods: A 91‐item questionnaire was developed following the Delphi method. The questionnaire and the Articulate glossary of OHP education terms were developed concurrently to facilitate a common understanding of language. Piloting was performed in multiple stages and included institutions internal and external to the research group. The questionnaire was uploaded online and converted to a data hub, allowing dental schools to control their own data and update the data provided whenever they wish. All ADEE member schools (n = 144) were invited to provide data. Forty questions relating to school details, Primary Dental Degree Programmes, Dental Hygiene and Postgraduate Education were included in this part of the series. Results: Seventy‐one institutions from 25 European countries provided data between June 2021 and April 2023, which represents a response rate of 49.3% of ADEE members. Programme‐level data for Primary Dental Degree Programmes, Dental Hygiene and Postgraduate Education is presented including programme length, funding, languages and fees, student numbers and demographics, student admission and selection processes and permission to practice after graduation. Conclusion: This series of papers, as far as the authors are aware, are the first attempts to build a comprehensive picture of the current state of OHP education in Europe. A comprehensive view of the state of OHP education in Europe is not yet available but the O‐Health‐Edu data hub provides a means for all education providers in Europe to contribute data to reach this goal. It is anticipated that the data hub will be updated and built upon over time to continually establish a clearer picture of the state of OHP education in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This consensus paper reports on the process of developing a renewed vision for Oral Health Professional (OHP) education across Europe, and forms part of a larger EU‐funded collaborative Erasmus+ project, "O‐Health‐Edu." The vision aligns with the World Health Organisation milestones (2016) and resolutions (2021), and EU4Health programme (2020) objectives ‐ and projects 20 years into the future, to 2040. This longitudinal vision takes a multi‐stakeholder perspective to deliver OHP education that acts in the best interests of both students and patients, and sits within the context of a wider strategy for general health. Included, it is an infographic to help communicate the vision to various stakeholders of OHP education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is mandatory in most European countries and evidence shows a move towards mandatory CPD across all Member States in the near future. Malta is one of seven Member States where dental CPD is still voluntary. Discussion: Although dental CPD is a legal requirement for recertification in many countries, integral aspects of dental CPD remain under debate, like whether CPD is truly effective. This is because the methods with which CPD programmes are evaluated are not sufficiently robust to give concrete evidence to determine whether CPD will actually improve quality of care, treatment outcomes and safety for the public. Evaluating the effect of CPD programmes on the public is an extremely difficult task that would require an enormous amount of resources and logistics. The minimum requirements for the number of compulsory CPD hours imposed by regulatory bodies are not evidence‐based but purely arbitrary, and the core topics selected for CPD programmes, although supported by research to some extent, may not reflect the public's and profession's needs. The Dental Association of Malta recognised need for further research on dental CPD and embarked on a 3‐year Dental CPD Research Project. This project will be presented in a two‐part series of articles. This first article is focused on the background of dental CPD in Europe. An understanding of the current issues with CPD and flaws in methods of evaluation formed the basis of the Malta CPD Pilot Project, which will be covered in the next paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The survey's aim was to establish which universities and other educational organisations deliver postgraduate and specialist training in Periodontology in the 31 countries who are members of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and to obtain details of how these programmes are organised, funded, regulated and evaluated. Methods: A questionnaire and covering letter were emailed to all national periodontal societies. The questions were on the name of country, official recognition, training programmes, entry to specialist training, specialist training assessment and recognition after completion of training. Results: Twenty‐nine (93%) of national periodontal societies responded. Key findings included the following: Periodontology was reported as being recognised at a national level in 17 countries, there was a three‐year full‐time programme in 12 countries, no fees were charged for specialist training in 10 countries, in 14 countries trainees received annual salaries, end of training (summative) assessments varied from country to country, 12 countries reported that they had a requirement for specialists in Periodontology to complete continuing education to maintain registration as specialists. Conclusions: This survey has established which universities and other educational organisations deliver postgraduate and specialist training in Periodontology and how these programmes are organised, funded, regulated and evaluated. To provide uniformly high‐quality periodontal care for patients in all European countries, further harmonisation of postgraduate and specialty training in Periodontology would be advantageous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Erasmus+O‐Health‐EDU project aims to gain a comprehensive view of oral health professional (OHP) education in Europe, through the development of web‐based surveys and online toolkits. A glossary to facilitate a common language through which academic teams could cooperate and communicate more accurately was identified as a key need within the project. The aim of ARTICULATE was thus to create a shared language, with a European focus, for terms and concepts used in the field of OHP education. Methods: The methodology was developed from those published for construction of other glossaries with a circular and iterative process: the creation of content and definitions by a group of experts in OHP education, the testing of "fitness for purpose" of the content, and stakeholder consultation. All creation steps were followed by refinements based on testing results and stakeholder comments. The final glossary was then launched as an online resource including a built‐in mechanism for user feedback. Results: The scope and structure of the glossary were mapped out at a workshop with 12 dental education experts from 7 European countries. A total of 328 terms were identified, of which 171 were finally included in ARTICULATE. After piloting with a close group of other colleagues, the glossary was opened for external input. Thirty European Deans or Heads of Education assessed the definition of each term as "clear" or "not clear." A total of 86 definitions were described as "clear" by all individuals. Terms deemed unclear by at least one individual were revisited and changes made to 37 of the definitions. In conjunction with the launch of the glossary, a range of stakeholder organisations were informed and asked to participate in an open global consultation by providing feedback online. Since its launch in June 2021, the ARTICULATE website (https://o‐health‐edu.org/articulate) has had an average of 500 visits/month. To promote community ownership, forms embedded on the ARTICULATE webpage allow users to give feedback and suggest new terms. A standing taskforce will meet regularly to consider amendments and make changes to ensure that the glossary remains a relevant and up‐to‐date resource over time. Conclusion: ARTICULATE is a unique, evolving, online glossary of terms relating to OHP education, created as a resource for all interested OHP educators. The glossary is a key output of the O‐Health‐Edu project, which relies on a comprehensive vision of OHP education to address the future oral health needs of the European population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]