Lin Hsuan L, Rowland Michael L, Fields Henry W
The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, OH 43218-2357, USA.
J Dent Educ. 2006 Dec;70(12):1320-7.
Currently, dental school graduates are viewed as a resource by their institutions and those who underwrite their educational costs. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of dental school graduates who practiced dentistry in the same state as their dental school. Using the American Dental Association database of approximately 35,000 graduates between 1985 and 1995, the data were analyzed to determine the percentage of graduates who were retained and currently reside in the state of their dental school versus those located outside of that state ("exported"). It was also possible to calculate the number of dentists who moved into each state but were educated elsewhere ("imported"). The ratio of imported to exported graduates was calculated and indicated a positive flow into the state when greater than one and an outflow when less than one. Overall, mean graduate retention was 67.3 percent, 65.4 percent, and 44.3 percent for public, public state-related, and private schools, respectively, while the median graduate retention of 71.1 percent and 71.6 percent for public and public state-related schools made them indistinguishable. The mean import-export ratio for public school graduates was 2.9, indicating that on average nearly three dentists were imported to a state for every public dental school graduate exported. States' total import-export ratio for all types of graduates was 2.2, indicating that on average a little over two dentists were imported to every one exported by a state with a dental school of any kind. The medians for all these ratios were much more modest (0.95 and 0.80 for public dental schools and states with dental schools), indicating that they sent more students out of the state than they imported. Six public dental schools exported greater than 50 percent of their dental graduates, while five public schools retained more than 85 percent of their graduates. Only one private state-related school retained less than 50 percent of its students. In view of these results, it is apparent there is great variability in graduate retention, and the total yield of new dentists for each state is determined by both the retention rate for graduates and its import-export ratio. Most public and public state-related schools do a good job of retaining graduates. When they do send graduates out of state, the median shows they do not gain quite enough to offset those exported. In most instances, this becomes highly problematic only when a low retention rate is paired with a low import-export ratio. Each state must consider its unique situation carefully and consider its yield, the types of problems that face the state in terms of dental workforce, and possible solutions.
目前,牙科学院毕业生被其所在院校以及那些承担其教育费用的机构视为一种资源。本研究的目的是确定在与他们就读牙科学院所在州相同的州从事牙科工作的毕业生比例。利用美国牙科协会约35000名1985年至1995年毕业生的数据库,对数据进行分析,以确定留在并目前居住在其牙科学院所在州的毕业生比例与那些位于该州以外(“输出”)的毕业生比例。还可以计算出迁入每个州但在其他地方接受教育的牙医数量(“输入”)。计算输入毕业生与输出毕业生的比例,当该比例大于1时表明有正向流入该州,小于1时则表明有流出。总体而言,公立、公立相关院校和私立学校的毕业生留校率分别为67.3%、65.4%和44.3%,而公立和公立相关院校毕业生留校率的中位数分别为71.1%和71.6%,这使得它们难以区分。公立学校毕业生的平均进出口比例为2.9,这表明平均而言,每输出一名公立牙科学院毕业生,就有近三名牙医输入到一个州。所有类型毕业生的州总进出口比例为2.2,这表明平均而言,对于任何有牙科学院的州,每输出一名毕业生就有略多于两名牙医输入。所有这些比例的中位数则要低得多(公立牙科学院和有牙科学院的州分别为0.95和0.80),这表明它们输送到州外的学生比输入的更多。六所公立牙科学院输出的牙科毕业生超过其毕业生总数的50%,而五所公立学校留校的毕业生超过其毕业生总数的85%。只有一所私立相关院校留校的学生不到其学生总数的50%。鉴于这些结果,显然毕业生留校情况存在很大差异,每个州新牙医的总产出取决于毕业生留校率及其进出口比例。大多数公立和公立相关院校在留校毕业生方面做得很好。当它们确实将毕业生输送到州外时,中位数表明它们获得的不足以抵消输出的人数。在大多数情况下,只有当留校率低且进出口比例也低时,这才会成为大问题。每个州都必须仔细考虑其独特情况,并考虑其产出、该州在牙科劳动力方面面临的问题类型以及可能的解决方案。