V Niven1, L B Cabot, J E Gallagher. 1. King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals, Unit of Oral Health Services Research & Dental Public Health, Denmark Hill Campus, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9RS. victoria.niven@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: To compare the demographics (age, sex, ethnicity, social status, disability, country/region) and academic experience (school type) of accepted UK applicants to the five-year and four-year dental programmes in 2007 and 2008. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive analysis was carried out on the University and College Admissions Services (UCAS) data for accepted UK applicants to the five- and four-year dental programmes at UK dental schools in the years 2007 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to model the outcome of dental admission to programmes (four-year vs five-year), controlling for the other explanatory variables. Data were analysed using SPSS v19. RESULTS: In the years 2007 and 2008 over 2,000 UK applicants were accepted on to a dental course (n = 2,274) within the UK. Of these accepted applicants, 84% (n = 1,903) were accepted onto a five-year and 14% (n = 322) onto a four-year, programme. Over half were female for both the five- and four-year programmes (58% cf 59% respectively). One tenth of students accepted to the five-year programme were 'mature' (n = 173) and nearly all of the students to the four-year programme (n = 321). Similar proportions of accepted applicants to both programmes were from minority ethnic groups (46%), with the majority of students being of White or Asian background; however, the four-year programmes accepted a higher proportion of black (4% cf 1%) and 'other' minority ethnic students (8% cf 3%) when compared with the five-year programme. A higher proportion of accepted students to the four-year programmes came from the lowest 'higher/further education participation areas' (POLAR2 groups 1-3) than the five-year programmes (38% cf 28%). Proportionally more accepted applicants to the four-year programmes came from London than the five-year programmes (30%, cf 20%). In contrast, a greater proportion of accepted applicants to the five-year programmes came from Scotland (13% cf 6%), Northern Ireland (9% cf 0%) and Wales (4% cf 2%). When all other factors were controlled, the odds of being accepted to the four-year rather than the five-year programme were higher if the applicants were mature and from Greater London. CONCLUSION: There is little definitive evidence that graduate entry programmes widen access to dentistry when compared with the traditional five-year programme; however, the findings do highlight geographic disparities in access to graduate entry programmes, which are important for policy makers and schools to consider.
AIM: To compare the demographics (age, sex, ethnicity, social status, disability, country/region) and academic experience (school type) of accepted UK applicants to the five-year and four-year dental programmes in 2007 and 2008. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive analysis was carried out on the University and College Admissions Services (UCAS) data for accepted UK applicants to the five- and four-year dental programmes at UK dental schools in the years 2007 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to model the outcome of dental admission to programmes (four-year vs five-year), controlling for the other explanatory variables. Data were analysed using SPSS v19. RESULTS: In the years 2007 and 2008 over 2,000 UK applicants were accepted on to a dental course (n = 2,274) within the UK. Of these accepted applicants, 84% (n = 1,903) were accepted onto a five-year and 14% (n = 322) onto a four-year, programme. Over half were female for both the five- and four-year programmes (58% cf 59% respectively). One tenth of students accepted to the five-year programme were 'mature' (n = 173) and nearly all of the students to the four-year programme (n = 321). Similar proportions of accepted applicants to both programmes were from minority ethnic groups (46%), with the majority of students being of White or Asian background; however, the four-year programmes accepted a higher proportion of black (4% cf 1%) and 'other' minority ethnic students (8% cf 3%) when compared with the five-year programme. A higher proportion of accepted students to the four-year programmes came from the lowest 'higher/further education participation areas' (POLAR2 groups 1-3) than the five-year programmes (38% cf 28%). Proportionally more accepted applicants to the four-year programmes came from London than the five-year programmes (30%, cf 20%). In contrast, a greater proportion of accepted applicants to the five-year programmes came from Scotland (13% cf 6%), Northern Ireland (9% cf 0%) and Wales (4% cf 2%). When all other factors were controlled, the odds of being accepted to the four-year rather than the five-year programme were higher if the applicants were mature and from Greater London. CONCLUSION: There is little definitive evidence that graduate entry programmes widen access to dentistry when compared with the traditional five-year programme; however, the findings do highlight geographic disparities in access to graduate entry programmes, which are important for policy makers and schools to consider.
Authors: Ben Kumwenda; Jennifer Cleland; Rachel Greatrix; Rhoda Katharine MacKenzie; Gordon Prescott Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 2.692