Skip to Content
  • Review
  • Open Access

12 March 2021

Planning the Future Oral Health Workforce: A Rapid Review of Supply, Demand and Need Models, Data Sources and Skill Mix Considerations

,
,
,
and
1
Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia
2
Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia
3
Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, Kings College London, London SE5 9RS, UK
4
Dental Academy, William Beatty Building, Hampshire Terrace, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2QG, UK

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a renewed interest in oral health workforce planning. The purpose of this review is to examine oral health workforce planning models on supply, demand and needs, mainly in respect to their data sources, modelling technique and use of skill mix. A limited search was carried out on PubMed and Web of Science for published scientific articles on oral health workforce planning models between 2010 to 2020. No restrictions were placed on the type of modelling philosophy, and all studies including supply, demand or needs based models were included. Rapid review methods guided the review process. Twenty-three studies from 15 countries were included in the review. A majority were from high-income countries (n = 17). Dentists were the sole oral health workforce group modelled in 13 studies; only five studies included skill mix (allied dental personnel) considerations. The most common application of modelling was a workforce to population ratio or a needs-based demand weighted variant. Nearly all studies presented weaknesses in modelling process due to the limitations in data sources and/or non-availability of the necessary data to inform oral health workforce planning. Skill mix considerations in planning models were also limited to horizontal integration within oral health professionals. Planning for the future oral health workforce is heavily reliant on quality data being available for supply, demand and needs models. Integrated methodologies that expand skill mix considerations and account for uncertainty are essential for future planning exercises.

1. Introduction

The health workforce is the backbone of health systems, fundamental towards achieving universal health coverage (UHC) and meeting sustainable development goals (SDGs) [1,2,3]. Planning for the future health workforce is a complex process, requiring trade-offs across multiple health professional objectives in education, training and regulation, and numerous uncertainties due to transition health environments (demographic, epidemiologic and technology) [4]. In general health workforce planning aims to achieve a proper balance between supply and demand of health professionals [5]. The philosophy behind planning is to ensure the right number of health personnel, with the right training and skill sets are available at the right place and at the right time to meet population needs, but at an acceptable cost and quality [6]. The process is not just technical, but a political one [6]. Planning decisions on the number, type and distribution of health personnel depend and are influenced by a range of social, economic and professional values enshrined within underlying health systems.
Planning for the future oral health workforce presents its unique challenges. First, the profession of dentistry, in many countries, has remained historically ‘distinct’ from the medical, nursing and broader health professions [7]. Silos are visible in the education and practice of dental professionals, that also extend to policy and planning decisions [7,8,9]. Second, dentists are at the center of the dental profession, entrusted with the responsibility of providing leadership, and serving as the first point of contact for the majority of oral health conditions [7]. The allied dental workforce—dental hygienists, dental therapists, dual qualified hygienist/therapists, dental technicians, denturists, prosthetists and dental assistants—support the dentist in the provision of care. However, the acceptance of allied dental professionals vary country to country and potentially reflect on the use of skill mix in planning decisions [10]. Third, dental specialists are the gatekeepers of the profession, providing exceptional services to ‘special’ patients, and serving as a focal point for quality benchmarks, innovation and adoption of new procedures, clinical research and education of the dental team [11]. Atleast 10 distinct specialist dental professionals exist: orthodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, paediatric dentists, oral pathologists, oral medicine, special needs and dental public health specialists. Not all dental specialities gain equal importance in the planning exercise. A further challenge in oral health workforce planning is consideration for both horizontal (i.e., within profession skill mix) and vertical (i.e., skill mix outside the dental profession) integration in planning models.
Traditionally, four broad approaches to health workforce planning have been identified in the literature: needs-based, utilisation or demand-based, health workforce to population ratio, and target setting approach [4,12]. Each of these approaches includes atleast one or more of the basic building blocks in modelling: supply, demand and need [13]. Supply models estimate the number of health personnel available based on the current stocks, flows/migration, and newly trained personnel. Demand or needs model estimate health personnel required to meet the underlying population demand or needs respectively. Needs are identified through epidemiological surveys, accounting for diseases prevalence and health status. Demand is identified through health service utilisation. Supply and demand/needs models are usually presented together, so the combined model can determine the gap in health personnel availability. Planning models are also classified as being deterministic or stochastic [12]. Deterministic models assume the outcome is certain, and always deliver the same results for the same input values. On the other hand, stochastic models allow for the introduction of random changes and provide means for building an element of uncertainty in the overall planning models.
Over the last decade, there has been a renewed interest in oral health workforce planning [14,15,16]. The purpose of this review is to examine oral health workforce planning models on supply, demand and needs, mainly in respect to their data sources, modelling technique and use of skill mix. We also identify strengths and weaknesses in these workforce models and provide insights on how oral health workforce planning can evolve in the future to meet changing population needs and demands, improving health outcomes and health systems performance.

2. Methods

The study was based on a rapid review approach adapted from Khangura et al. [17] and Thomas et al. [18]. Rapid reviews are a type of systematic reviews, where components of a regular systematic review are simplified or made more efficient to produce information in a shorter span of time, but with minimal impact to quality [19]. In recent years, rapid reviews have emerged as an efficient solution to synthesizing evidence to support health policymaking and health systems strengthening by providing high-quality evidence in a timely and cost-effective manner [20]. Our rapid review involved the following steps: (i) defining a review/research question (ii) developing a search strategy (iii) establishing selection/eligibility criteria (iv) screening and study selection (v) data extraction and (vi) synthesis of findings. We have adhered to Khangura et al.’s descriptive synthesis of findings and emphasis on translation of findings to policy and practice [18,19]. Targeted searching of key databases, and data abstraction by mapping study characteristics were adopted from Thomas et al. [17,19]. While no generic trend or adherence to any particular variant of rapid reviews have been observed in recent reviews [19,21], our methodological underpinning to key schools of rapid review thought streamlines our approach and philosophy.

2.1. Research Question

The following question was formulated for this part of the review: What are the main operational models, data sources and techniques used in oral health workforce planning?

2.2. Search Strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was designed in consultation with an expert librarian at Kings College London to capture the relevant literature on the topic of interest. We included four broad categories in our search criteria: healthcare and workforce planning, dental service provision, dental staffing, modelling techniques and skill mix. Specific MeSH terms and keywords, along with Boolean operators were used to build the search. This list was refined by conducting a group discussion among all authors to arrive at a consensus. Electronic searches were carried out in 2 different databases: PubMed and Web of Science. The search strategy was designed for PubMed interface, and later revised for Web of Science. A limited literature search was undertaken for relevant titles, abstracts and keywords (please see Supplementary Tables S1 and S4). Standard techniques such as using truncation methods and searching for relevant references from the bibliography provided in searched papers and were also used. Manual forward-backward search or citation tracking of the identified articles were performed using Scopus and Google Scholar. The search process and identification of articles was carried in the second half of 2020, between September and December.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

Published original research articles on oral health workforce planning were included in the review. Studies need to have followed a workforce modelling approach to estimate the current or future requirements of oral health personnel (dentists, dental specialists, therapists, hygienists, or other allied dental personnel). No restrictions were placed on the type of modelling philosophy, and all studies including supply, demand or needs-based estimates were included. Studies could range from simple dentist population ratios, to more complex skill mix and scenario-based models. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 in English language were included.
Commentaries, reviews, policy briefs, government reports, working papers, opinions, perspectives, conference abstracts, letter to editors, dissertations/thesis, or evidence summaries were excluded in this review. Oral health workforce modelling should have been the main aspect of the paper—studies that only identified oral health workforce requirements without any supporting methods or modelling approaches were excluded. Studies should have also focused on oral health personnel as the basic unit for modelling—studies focusing on dental practices or facilities were excluded.

2.4. Study Selection

First, one of the reviewers (S.G.) identified all articles via database searching, duplicates were excluded and imported the final list into a web/mobile based systematic review management application called Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar) [22]. The tool is mainly designed to expedite the initial screening of abstracts, titles and keywords using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability [22]. Duplicates were removed. Four reviewers (M.B., A.H., A.A., S.G.) carried out the selection of articles. Articles that did not fit the eligibility criteria were excluded. If limited information was available in the initial scanning process, the full text was obtained to determine eligibility. Later, the full text of all selected articles was read, and further limited to only relevant articles based on the selection criteria. Lack of agreement or conflict arising in the selection of articles were resolved through group discussions and consultation with the senior author (J.G.).

2.5. Data Extraction, Synthesis and Reporting

Extraction of data from selected papers was performed by using pre-defined criteria. We extracted a range of study characteristics including: author/year, country of research, aim of study, workforce/population modelled, model type, supply/demand/needs models, data sources, findings, strengths/limitations, policy implications and conclusion. All authors were involved in discussing the emerging data to decide on relevance and decide any modifications in the data extraction framework for the study. Data extraction was conducted using an MS Excel template, which was later developed into a MS Access database for improved usability. We followed a descriptive approach in synthesis and reporting of data, based on Khangura et al.’s rapid review methodology [18]. The focus of this paper is limited to detailed characteristics of the supply, demand and needs model, how these models were developed and the sources of data for these models.

3. Results

A total of n = 3047 potential articles were identified through database and citation searching. Following the removal of duplicates, n = 2748 articles were available for title/abstract/keyword screening. A total of n = 2727 articles were excluded (n = 64 after group discussion and conflict resolution), providing n = 23 articles for data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Figure 1 provides the PRISMA flowchart of the study selection. A list of selected studies for the rapid review will full citation of articles is provided in Supplementary Table S3.
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart for the Rapid Review.

3.1. Main Study Characteristics

The main characteristics of the 23 selected studies are provided in Table 1. These publications were from 15 different countries across the world: Australia [23], Canada [24], Chile [25], China [26,27], Japan [28], Kuwait [29], India [30], Ireland [31], Malaysia [32,33], Oman [34], Sri Lanka [35], Taiwan [36], Trinidad & Tobago [37], the United Kingdom [38,39,40,41], and the United States of America [42,43,44,45]. Seven studies were based in the WHO American Region, followed by the European (n = 5) and Western Pacific Regions (n = 4). Most of the studies were also based on high-income group World Bank countries (n = 17). It is important to note that no studies were identified from the WHO African Region or low-income group World Bank countries Dentists were the dominant oral health workforce group modelled across 13 studies [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,34,35,36,43,44]. Five studies considered both dental and allied dental workforce (including therapists, hygienists, clinical technicians, denturists) in the workforce models [32,33,38,39,40]. Four studies specifically modelled the dental specialist workforce, including all dental specialities [41] or covering any of the limited specialist groups: oral and maxillofacial surgeons [23], orthodontists [37] or pediatric dentists [45]. One study has modelled all three oral health workforce groups: dentists, pediatric dentists (specialists) and dental hygienists (allied dental professionals) [42]. The population being modelled in the studies ranged from the full population of the country/region (n = 10) [23,25,28,29,30,34,35,36,40,43] or limited to include a specific group such as children (n = 4) [26,37,42,45], adults (n = 3) [31,32,33], or older people (n = 1) [38]. Four studies focused on population-based at a specific catchment area such as province/state (Liaoning Province, China [27]; Kentucky, USA [44]; Georgia, USA [42]) or a service/administrative zone (South Central Strategic Health Authority, England/UK [39]; Canadian Armed Forces service areas, Canada [24])
Table 1. Main characteristics of selected studies in the rapid review.
A number of workforce modelling types were observed in the selected studies, with the most common application being the workforce to population ratio (n = 10) [25,27,28,29,30,34,36,37,41,44] followed by a needs-based/demand-weighted (n = 5) [23,35,38,39,45] variant. One article compared both the workforce to population ratio and needs based demand weighted models in the same study [24]. Four studies used a needs-based model [26,31,32,33]; and three a demand or utilization based model alone [40,42,43].

3.2. Detailed Study Characteristics

Table 2 presents detailed study characteristics of the supply, demand and needs models along with various data sources and techniques used in developing these models.
Table 2. Detailed characteristics of supply and demand/needs model of selected studies.

3.2.1. Supply Models and Data Sources

A total of 18 studies in the review have presented supply models. Existing stock of the dental workforce has been determined in all these studies, with the most common estimation being through the use of dentist registrations data, obtained via a national dental council or a regulatory authority (n = 7) [29,30,31,35,38,41,42,44]. Two studies from the USA have determined estimates using state dental regulatory authorities, namely from Georgia [42] and Kentucky [44]. Brailsford & De Silva [35], prepared a separate national register for the study accommodating registrations, record matching and panel interview to identify existing stock and currency of practice. Gallagher et al. [38] used a range of sources (registrations, dental practice survey and NHS government data) in determining the existing stock of oral health workforce in England, UK. In addition, four other studies have used mainly dentist surveys in accounting for existing workforce numbers [23,27,28,43]. Studies in Australia [23] and Japan [28] have utilized national dental workforce surveys in determining more detailed estimates on the stock of dentists. A few studies have also used government data from sector specific areas such as health services [36,38,39,42] or armed forces [24].
Surdu et al. [45] documented an elaborate use of national dental association registrations data for determining supply estimates of pediatric dentists, in addition to survey and workforce publications from government sources. Nine studies have included flow estimates within their supply models, through the inclusion of migration, retirement, absence, return to work and deaths [23,28,31,34,35,36,38,39,45]. Ten studies have included newly trained dentists in the supply model [23,25,28,30,31,34,35,36,38,39,45], mostly through information available from dental school completions. Brailsford & De Silva [35] also incorporated a student survey to understand student motivations and career expectations. A few studies have also accommodated government regulations and potential for newly created dentists/hygienist places in their supply estimates [34,38,39].
Studies have represented overall workforce participation either through dental personnel numbers alone (n = 5) [25,29,30,34,44] or accounting for clinical or part time hours worked and determining full time equivalent dentists (n = 7) [24,31,35,38,39,42,45]. Ju et al. [23] and Ishimaru et al. [28] have used work status questions from surveys in determining workforce participation.

3.2.2. Demand Models, Population Only Estimates and Data Sources

Demand models, represented as a needs-based demand weighted or utilization/demand model were presented in nine studies [23,35,38,39,40,42,43,45]. At the basic level estimates were presented as only population numbers in eight studies [25,27,28,29,30,34,36,44]. Population estimates were sourced from national or state-based census sources, government departments, or a combination of both. Seven studies [23,24,35,38,39,40,45] estimated the expressed demand through available data on oral health status, and converted the demand to workforce requirements as minutes, dentists or FTE dentists. Brailsford De Silva [35] used FDI/WHO method in estimating services needed per person—based on people who actively express the need for care from a population survey. Three studies in the UK (Gallagher [38,39]; Wanyoyi, [40]) have used NHS treatment data to arrive at a very detailed estimates of demand and workforce requirement. A simple estimation of demand was reported in Eklund and Balit [43]—the proportion of dental visits people make in a year (determined form a previous publication) in estimating workforce requirements.

3.2.3. Needs Models and Data Sources

The review identified four studies [26,31,32,33] that have predominantly used a needs model in determining workforce requirements. All four studies used a population survey to determine oral health status and treatment needs. Three studies were limited in survey design or sample size or research question: Sun et al. [26] surveyed only 12-year-olds in China, and Ab-Murat et al. [32,33] surveyed 30–54-year-old university employees at a single site (public university) in Malaysia. Ab-Murat et al. [32,33] also focused on specific aspects covering periodontal and prosthodontic treatment needs, which were measured through two approaches: a normative approach and socio dental approach. Face-to-face questionnaires were also used to determine oral health impacts and behaviours. Both Ab-Murat et al. [32,33] and Sun et al. [26] used panel interviews to determine treatment timings, helping in the estimation of workforce requirement. Sun et al. [26] further expanded the needs aspect (determined for 12-year olds) to whole population in China by utilizing care provision ratios, adopted from a previous study. In contrast, Ahern et al. (2019) [31] used a more comprehensive oral health survey dataset that covered all adults (15+ years old) in Ireland. The population survey included questions on oral health status, behaviours, impacts and visiting patterns to determine service timings and workforce requirements in FTE dentists.

3.2.4. Skill Mix Considerations

The use of skill mix in modelling that take into account the contribution or influence of different workforce groups towards supply, demand and/or need models has been limited. Only seven studies accounted for skill mix variations [32,33,38,39,40,42,45]. The common application of skill mix was the use of allied dental teams (dental therapists, hygienists, denturists) along with dentists [32,33,38,39,40,42]. Surdu et al. [45] have applied specialist pediatric dentists along with general dentists in skill mix models for planning pediatric dental workforce. Studies that used skill mix accounted for changes in the provision of services by the extended dental team and how their participation effectively altered the future workforce requirements for oral health care. None of the studies examined the provision of oral health care outside the main oral health workforce groups i.e., accounting for possible care provision by medical, nursing, pharmacy or broader allied health workforce teams. While a few studies have discussed the concept of skill mix within dental teams, they haven’t included it within the modelling approaches.
Almost all the models being presented were deterministic; only one study included a stochastic element in their modelling approach [38]. A number of studies identified limitations in relation to data sources, either data being unavailable or on the quality of planning data. Other limitations highlighted were being single site studies, small sample size (see Supplementary Table S3).

4. Discussion

The review examined oral health workforce planning models within the published scientific literature over the last 10 years. Many studies were from high-income countries; no studies were identified from low-income countries and the WHO African region. Calculating workforce to population ratios were the most common modelling approach, followed by needs-based demand weighted approaches. Needs-based approaches had limitations in the population being studied and/or the nature of oral health need assessments being undertaken. Lack of quality data for the modelling exercise is omnipresent in all sources of supply, demand and needs. Very few studies have made use of skill mix considerations in their models. Studies have not accounted for uncertainty of outcomes, or randomness in their modelling exercises, and were mostly deterministic in nature.
Workforce to population ratios, though commonly used in oral health workforce planning studies, represent a crude ratio and bring several shortcomings to the planning process. First, this ratio is based on assumptions of homogeneity across the numerator (i.e., all dental personnel are active and equally productive and will remain so) and that the denominator (i.e., all populations) will have similar oral health needs and will remain constant) [6,12]. This ratio does less justice to address differences in dentist practice activity or productivity (across age, sex, levels of experience, area of practice) or varying levels of oral disease prevalence, dental care utilisation or demographic, socio-economic differences of across population groups. Second, maldistribution of health personnel across different geographic areas, practice types (public or private) or facilities (hospitals, clinics) cannot be adequately represented using a single workforce to population ratio [5]. While it is possible to offer some comparisons using workforce to population ratios at global, region, country, state/area, facility levels, its inability to account for the intrinsic differences in dentist and disease characteristics would still prevail. Third, the ratio does not help us in understanding progress made in achieving wider health system objectives and performance benchmarks in regard to accessibility, equity, quality and efficiency, [6] particularly as the most basic aspect of access ‘coverage’ within countries can differ, particularly between urban and rural areas (ref)Nevertheless, the workforce to population ratio approach is less demanding in terms of data and it brings simplicity in terms of providing a snapshot estimate to health planners [4,5,46]. Our review identified studies from Kuwait [29], Trinidad and Tobago [37], Chile [25], Oman [34], Taiwan [36], India [30], China [26], UK (dental specialists) [41], and Kentucky (USA) [44] using a workforce to population ratio approach. It should be noted that all these studies also identified limitations in data sources or non-availability of quality data and they have resorted to using workforce to population ratio as a means of commencing the oral health workforce planning process [47].
Demand based planning approaches primarily make use of health service utilisation data. Our review has identified studies that use both dentist surveys [43] and administrative data such as electronic health records (EHR) [40] for extracting oral health service utilisation data. Traditionally, survey-based methods have been popular in understanding practice activity of oral health personnel, and the nature and type of services they offer to patients. For example, in Australia, dentist practice activity surveys have been the cornerstone of oral health workforce policy and planning since early 1980′s [48,49,50,51]. In recent years, however, the adoption and use of computerised systems and use of EHRs in dental practices and hospitals are becoming more common in many counties [52]. EHRs provide a viable, cost efficient and timely alternative to understand dental service utilisation data, against surveys that are more time consuming and resource intensive [53,54]. However, the use of EHRs is still in its infancy in terms of data quality and consistency in systems across public and private sectors [55,56,57]. As a large proportion of dentists practice in the private sector [7], it becomes important to find avenues to improve consistency as well as building data repositories for research and planning purposes. The International Association for Dental Research (the peak global dental research body), and its Network for Practice Based Research [58] has raised the importance of partnerships across private and public dental sector and Universities to improve quality, consistency and use of oral health service data collected in dental clinics or hospitals for research purposes.
Needs based approaches are more reflective of the underlying oral health needs of population. Such models take into account oral health conditions such as caries levels, periodontal status or missing teeth [26,31,32,33]. Data for needs in selected studies in the review are from population oral health surveys. However, not all studies were comprehensive, and were limited in the type of population group being surveyed or type of needs being assessed, or oral health status questions being studied.
The use of skill mix is a vital component in health workforce models, as it helps to accommodate task sharing and team work both across members of the dental team and wider medical, nursing and allied health teams. Prior planning theories and methods have to failed to incorporate skill-mix in planning designs [59]. The use of skill mix is an important factor when undergoing oral health workforce planning as it helps to determine the future framework of the oral health team in terms of number, size and consequently patient base [38]. In order to predict the future of the oral health workforce, it is important to appreciate the changes within society in terms of comparing and contrasting oral health need and demands, whilst balancing this against the supply of the dental workforce [60]. Vertical integration of the oral health workforce with other health professionals is also vital moving in the future, as in a post COVID era its logical to argue for greater collaboration with all members of the medical, dental and social teams so as to meet the growing needs and demands of the population [7]. Future research in oral health workforce planning needs to accommodate both horizontal and vertical integration within their planning exercises. A major issue for concern is planning the future dental speciality workforce. As gatekeepers of the dental profession, dental specialists are vital towards setting quality benchmarks, identifying divers for innovation and change. Planning exercises will need to extend to involve dental specialists along with general dentists and other members of the dental team in order to best serve the needs of the population.
The study identified lack of consistency and quality of workforce data arising from a wide variety of data sources. Supply data sources have particularly problematic due to the number of sources required to identify the stock, flows and newly trained. Our prior research has identified a range of inconsistencies across countries in these supply data sources and necessity for advocacy and solutions in improving registration and migration data on dental professionals [8].

Limitations

This rapid review included only published scientific research articles between 2010 to 2020. We limited our focus only on the past decade, as several advocacy and major progress on health workforce planning by global, regional and national organisations were prevalent during this period. Health workforce planning could also be conducted as an ‘in-house’ exercise by planning organisations which is more prevalent in grey literature. Our decision to include only published peer reviewed articles was conscious, mainly due to the rapid review method adopted [17,18], but also able to understand how well oral health workforce planning is represented in our scientific literature. One possible limitation is the fact that the senior author of this review is also active in workforce modelling and has authored several of the publications; however, we took account of this by having a wider research team work on the data extraction and analysis, recognising the importance also of having an expert in the field involved. We also identify a recent review published by a different group of colleagues on a similar topic [61]. Whilst our study differs in terms of review question, methods, and framework used in synthesis, the findings together make a major contribution to this important but relatively unexplored field of oral health workforce planning. The purpose of our review was to distinctly focus on data sources, techniques and skill mix considerations. Our method of synthesis was comprehensive to the above three parameters.

5. Conclusions

Planning for the future oral health workforce is heavily reliant on quality data being available for supply, demand and needs models. Studies have presented with a lack of uniformity and accepted standards in oral health workforce modelling approaches and reporting. Integrated methodologies that expand the skill mix considerations and introduce randomness and system dynamics to account for uncertainty are essential for future planning exercises.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/6/2891/s1, Supplementary Table S1: Search Strategy for the Rapid Review; Supplementary Table S2: Limitations mentioned in selected studies. Supplementary Table S3: List of selected studies for Rapid Review with full citation. Supplementary Table S4: PubMed Search with MeSH terms.

Author Contributions

All authors were equally involved in the design, development and conduct of the rapid review. M.B. wrote the first original draft of the manuscript, and revised the manuscript based on feedback from all authors. S.G. and A.H. conducted the search and identified the first list of articles. M.B., A.H., S.G., & A.A. were involved in scanning, identification and data extraction. J.G., provided oversight and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

M.B. is supported by an NHMRC Sidney Sax Research Fellowship (GNT: 1121576). S.G. is supported by the Portsmouth Global PhD Scholarship (2019–2022). The contents are solely the responsibility of the administering institution and the authors and do not reflect the views of funding bodies.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented in the study are available in the tables and figures included in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

J.G. is a co-author on a few of the published papers in this review.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Framing the Health Workforce Agenda for the Sustainable Development Goals: Biennium Report 2016–2017—WHO Health Workforce. Available online: http://www.who.int/hrh/BienniumReportRevised2017.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 30 December 2020).
  2. Campbell, J.; Buchan, J.; Cometto, G.; David, B.; Dussault, G.; Fogstad, H.; Fronteira, I.; Lozano, R.; Nyonator, F.; Pablos-Méndez, A.; et al. Human resources for health and universal health coverage: Fostering equity and effective coverage. Bull. World Health Organ. 2013, 91, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Campbell, J.; Dussault, G.; Buchan, J.; Pozo-Martin, F.; Guerra Arias, M.; Leone, C.; Siyam, A.; Cometto, G.A. A Universal Truth: No Health without a Workforce; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hall, T.L.; Mejia, A. Health Manpower Planning: Principles, Methods and Issues; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 1–146. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ono, T.; Lafortune, G.; Schoenstein, M. Health workforce planning in OECD countries: A review of 26 projection models from 18 countries. OECD Health Work. Pap. 2013, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dreesch, N.; Dolea, C.; Dal Poz, M.R.; Goubarev, A.; Adams, O.; Aregawi, M.; Bergstrom, K.; Fogstad, H.; Sheratt, D.; Linkins, J.; et al. An approach to estimating human resource requirements to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Health Policy Plan. 2005, 20, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Balasubramanian, M.; Brennan, D.S.; Short, S.D.; Gallagher, J.E. A strife of interests: A qualitative study on the challenges facing oral health workforce policy and planning. Health Policy 2019, 123, 1068–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Balasubramanian, M.; Davda, L.; Short, S.D.; Gallagher, J.E. Moving from advocacy to activism? The fourth WHO global forum on human resources for health and implications for dentistry. Br. Dent. J. 2018, 225, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  9. Gallagher, J.E.; Wilson, N.H.F. The future dental workforce? Br. Dent. J. 2009, 206, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. FDI Word Dental Federation. Optimal Oral Health through Inter-Professional Education and Collaborative Practice. Geneva. 2015. Available online: https://www.fdiworlddental.org/sites/default/files/media/news/collaborative-practice_digital.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2018).
  11. Balasubramanian, M.; Teusner, D.; Brennan, D. Dental specialists in Australia. Aust. Dent. J. 2010, 55, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  12. World Health Organization. Models and tools for health workforce planning and projections. Human Resources for Health Observer – Issue Number 3. Available online: https://www.who.int/hrh/resources/observer3/en/ (accessed on 30 December 2020).
  13. DeFriese, G.H.; Barker, B.D. Assessing Dental Manpower Requirements: Alternative Approaches for State and Local Planning; Ballinger Publishing Company: Cambridge, MA, USA; Harper & Row Publishers Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1982; 15 p. [Google Scholar]
  14. World Health Organization. Dublin Declaration on Human Resources for Health [Internet]. Fourth Global Forum on Human Resources for Health. Dublin, Ireland. Available online: http://www.who.int/hrh/events/Dublin_Declaration-on-HumanResources-for-Health.pdf?ua=1%0Ahttp://www.who.int/hrh/news/2017/action-to-avert-an18-million-health-worker-shortfall/en/ (accessed on 30 December 2020).
  15. Birch, S.; Ahern, S.; Brocklehurst, P.; Chikte, U.; Gallagher, J.; Listl, S.; Lalloo, R.; O’Malley, L.; Rigby, J.; Tickle, M.; et al. Planning the oral health workforce: Time for innovation. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2021, 49, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Thomas, J.; Newman, M.; Oliver, S. Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: Taking stock and moving forward. Évid. Policy J. Res. Debate Pract. 2013, 9, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Khangura, S.; Konnyu, K.; Cushman, R.; Grimshaw, J.; Moher, D. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst. Rev. 2012, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Tricco, A.C.; Antony, J.; Zarin, W.; Strifler, L.; Ghassemi, M.; Ivory, J.; Perrier, L.; Hutton, B.; Moher, D.; Straus, S.E. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Langlois, E.V.; Straus, S.E.; Antony, J.; King, V.J.; Tricco, A.C. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob. Health 2019, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Haby, M.M.; Chapman, E.; Clark, R.; Barreto, J.; Reveiz, L.; Lavis, J.N. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2016, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Ju, X.; Spencer, A.; Brennan, D. ARCPOH (Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health) The University of Adelaide. Supply and demand for oral and maxillofacial surgeons and services in Australia. Aust. Dent. J. 2010, 55, 346. [Google Scholar]
  24. Shaw, J.L.; Farmer, J.W.; Coyte, P.C.; Lawrence, H.P. Comparing human resource planning models in dentistry: A case study using Canadian Armed Forces dental clinics. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2017, 45, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Cartes-Velasquez, R.A. Exponential growth of dental schools in Chile: Effects on academic, economic and workforce issues. Braz. Oral Res. 2013, 27, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Sun, X.; Bernabé, E.; Liu, X.; Zheng, S.; Gallagher, J.E. Meeting the oral health needs of 12-year-olds in China: Human resources for oral health. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Zhang, Y.; Lu, Z.; Cheng, R.; Liu, L. Current state of allocation of oral health human resources in northern China and future needs. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2015, 13, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Ishimaru, M.; Ono, S.; Yasunaga, H.; Matsui, H.; Koike, S. Projected future distribution of dentists in Japan. J. Public Health Dent. 2016, 76, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  29. Al-Jarallah, K.F.; Moussa, M.A.A.; Al-Duwairi, Y.; Zaatar, E.; Al-Khanfar, K.F. The dentist workforce in Kuwait to the year 2020. Community Dent. Health 2010, 27, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Jaiswal, A.K.; Srinivas, P.; Suresh, S. Dental manpower in India: Changing trends since 1920. Int. Dent. J. 2014, 64, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Ahern, S.; Woods, N.; Kalmus, O.; Birch, S.; Listl, S. Needs-based planning for the oral health workforce—Development and ap-plication of a simulation model. Hum. Resour. Health 2019, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Ab-Murat, N.; Sheiham, A.; Tsakos, G.; Watt, R. Periodontal treatment needs and workforce requirements: Comparisons between the normative and sociodental approaches using different skill mix models. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2014, 43, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Ab-Murat, N.; Sheiham, A.; Watt, R.; Tsakos, G. Treatment needs and skill mix workforce requirements for prosthodontic care: A comparison of estimates using normative and sociodental approaches. Bmc Oral Health 2015, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Gallagher, J.E.; Manickam, S.; Wilson, N.H.F. Sultanate of Oman: Building a dental workforce. Hum. Resour. Health 2015, 13, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Brailsford, S.; De Silva, D. How many dentists does Sri Lanka need? Modelling to inform policy decisions. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2015, 66, 1566–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Huang, C.S.; Cher, T.-L.; Lin, C.-P.; Wu, K.-M. Projection of the dental workforce from 2011 to 2020, based on the actual workload of 6762 dentists in 2010 in Taiwan. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2013, 112, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Bourne, C.O. Orthodontic manpower requirements of Trinidad and Tobago. West. Indian Med. J. 2012, 61, 631–634. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gallagher, J.E.; Kleinman, E.R.; Harper, P.R. Modelling workforce skill-mix: How can dental professionals meet the needs and demands of older people in England? Br. Dent. J. 2010, 208, E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Gallagher, J.E.; Lim, Z.; Harper, P.R. Workforce skill mix: Modelling the potential for dental therapists in state-funded primary dental care. Int. Dent. J. 2013, 63, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Wanyonyi, K.L.; Radford, D.R.; Harper, P.R.; Gallagher, J.E. Alternative scenarios: Harnessing mid-level providers and evi-dence-based practice in primary dental care in England through operational research. Hum. Resour. Health 2015, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Mills, R.W. UK dental care for children—A specialist workforce analysis. Br. Dent. J. 2020, 1–5, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Cao, S.; Gentili, M.; Griffin, P.M.; Griffin, S.O.; Harati, P.; Johnson, B.; Serban, N.; Tomar, S. Estimating Demand for and Supply of Pediatric Preventive Dental Care for Children and Identifying Dental Care Shortage Areas, Georgia. Public Health Rep. 2017, 132, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Eklund, S.A.; Bailit, H.L. Estimating the Number of Dentists Needed in 2040. J. Dent. Educ. 2017, 81, eS146–eS152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Saman, D.M.; Arevalo, O.; Johnson, A.O. The dental workforce in Kentucky: Current status and future needs. J. Public Health Dent. 2010, 70, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Surdu, S.; Dall, T.M.; Langelier, M.; Forte, G.J.; Chakrabarti, R.; Reynolds, R.L. The pediatric dental workforce in 2016 and beyond. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2019, 150, 609–617.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Federation, F.W.D. Oral health workforce planning for developed countries. Int. Dent. J. 2005, 55, 42–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  47. Gallagher, J.E.; Hutchinson, L. Analysis of human resources for oral health globally: Inequitable distribution. Int. Dent. J. 2018, 68, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Brennan, D.; Balasubramanian, M.; Spencer, A. Treatment of caries in relation to lesion severity: Implications for minimum intervention dentistry. J. Dent. 2015, 43, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Brennan, D.; Balasubramanian, M.; Spencer, A. Diagnostic services in Australia: Service rates and characteristics of patients. Aust. Dent. J. 2016, 61, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Brennan, D.; Balasubramanian, M.; Spencer, A. Restorative treatment for initial, cavitated and gross coronal carious lesions. Aust. Dent. J. 2016, 61, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Brennan, D.S.; Balasubramanian, M.; Spencer, A.J. Trends in dental service provision in Australia: 1983–1984 to 2009–2010. Int. Dent. J. 2015, 65, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Hillestad, R.; Bigelow, J.; Bower, A.; Girosi, F.; Meili, R.; Scoville, R.; Taylor, R. Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, And Costs. Health Aff. 2005, 24, 1103–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Baumann, L.A.; Baker, J.; Elshaug, A.G. The impact of electronic health record systems on clinical documentation times: A systematic review. Heal. Policy 2018, 122, 827–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  54. Burton, L.C.; Anderson, G.F.; Kues, I.W. Using Electronic Health Records to Help Coordinate Care. Milbank Q. 2004, 82, 457–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  55. Schleyer, T.K.; Thyvalikakath, T.P.; Spallek, H.; Dziabiak, M.P.; Johnson, L.A. From information technology to informatics: The in-formation revolution in dental education. J. Dent Educ. 2012, 76, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Spallek, H.; Johnson, L.; Kerr, J.; Rankin, D. Costs of health IT: Beginning to understand the financial impact of a dental school EHR. J. Dent. Educ. 2014, 78, 1542–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Johnson, L.; Callaghan, C.; Balasubramanian, M.; Haq, H.; Spallek, H. Cost Comparison of an On-Premise IT Solution with a Cloud-Based Solution for Electronic Health Records in a Dental School Clinic. J. Dent. Educ. 2019, 83, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Balasubramanian, M.; IADR. International Association for Dental Research, Network for Practice Based Research. 2020. Available online: https://www.iadr.org/IADR/Join-Renew/Groups-Networks/Network-for-Practice-Based-Research (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  59. Bronkhorst, E.M.; Truin, G.J.; Batchelor, P.; Sheiham, A. Health Through Oral Health; Guidelines for Planning and Monitoring for Oral Health Care. J. Public Health Dent. 1991, 51, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Brocklehurst, P.; Tickle, M. Planning a dental workforce for the future for the National Health Service in the United Kingdom: What factors should be accounted for? Health Educ. J. 2011, 71, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. O’Malley, L.; Macey, R.; Allen, T.; Brocklehurst, P.; Thomson, F.; Rigby, J.; Lalloo, R.; Murphy, G.T.; Birch, S.; Tickle, M. Workforce Planning Models for Oral Health Care: A Scoping Review. JDR Clin. Transl. Res. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.