Purpose In addition to dental education, a system for the evaluation and management of dental licensing and certification is required to meet the growing societal demand for more competent dentists. In this study, the Delphi technique was used to gather opinions from a variety of professionals on the problems of and remedies for the dental license management system in Korea.
Methods Delphi surveys were conducted from April 2016 to October 2016 in South Korea. A variety of dental professionals were included and categorized into 3 groups according to their expertise as follows: the basic dentistry group, the clinical dentistry group, and the policy group. The Delphi technique was conducted in 3 rounds of e-mail surveys, each with different questions that probed with increasing depth on the dental license management system. In each successive round, the responses were categorized, scored on a Likert scale, and statistically analyzed.
Results After categorizing the results of the first survey and ranking the results of the second survey using the Delphi technique, regulation by a licensing authority was found to be the most critical issue. This was followed by the license renewal system, continuing education, a tiered licensure system, improvement of foreign license approval, and utilization of retirees, in decreasing order of importance. The third Delphi survey showed a similar ranking, with regulation by a licensing authority being the major concern. Opinions regarding the dental license management system were provided as open-ended responses. The responses of the 3 groups showed statistically significant differences in the scores for the issue of regulation by a licensing authority. After re-grouping into the dentistry group and the policy group, the issue received a significantly higher score in the dentistry group.
Conclusion The quality of dental treatment should be managed to protect patients and dental professionals. For this purpose, the establishment of an independent license regulation authority along with legislative changes is required.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
O‐HEALTH‐EDU: A viewpoint into the current state of Oral Health Professional education in Europe: Part 1: Programme‐level data Jonathan Dixon, James Field, Sibylle Vital, Maria van Harten, Valerie Roger‐Leroi, Julia Davies, Maria‐Cristina Manzanares‐Cespedes, Ilze Akota, Denis Murphy, Corrado Paganelli, Gabor Gerber, Barry Quinn, Stephanie Tubert‐Jeannin European Journal of Dental Education.2024; 28(2): 591. CrossRef
Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review Kathleen Leslie, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Anne-Louise Carlton, Madhan Balasubramanian, Raha Mirshahi, Stephanie D. Short, Jenny Carè, Giorgio Cometto, Vivian Lin Human Resources for Health.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Purpose Upward feedback is becoming more widely used in medical training as a means of quality control. Multiple biases exist, thus the accuracy of upward feedback is debatable. This study aims to identify factors that could influence upward feedback, especially in medical training. Methods: A systematic review using a structured search strategy was performed. Thirty-five databases were searched. Results were reviewed and relevant abstracts were shortlisted. All studies in English, both medical and non-medical literature, were included. A simple pro-forma was used initially to identify the pertinent areas of upward feedback, so that a focused pro-forma could be designed for data extraction. Results: A total of 204 articles were reviewed. Most studies on upward feedback bias were evaluative studies and only covered Kirkpatrick level 1-reaction. Most studies evaluated trainers or training, were used for formative purposes and presented quantitative data. Accountability and confidentiality were the most common overt biases, whereas method of feedback was the most commonly implied bias within articles. Conclusion: Although different types of bias do exist, upward feedback does have a role in evaluating medical training. Accountability and confidentiality were the most common biases. Further research is required to evaluate which types of bias are associated with specific survey characteristics and which are potentially modifiable.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The impact of prior performance information on subsequent assessment: is there evidence of retaliation in an anonymous multisource assessment system? Bahar Saberzadeh-Ardestani, Ali Reza Sima, Bardia Khosravi, Meredith Young, Sara Mortaz Hejri Advances in Health Sciences Education.2024; 29(2): 531. CrossRef
Launching the ACE Katrina Calvert, Sarah Janssens, Ian Symonds Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.2024; 64(4): 305. CrossRef
Upward Feedback: Exploring Learner Perspectives on Giving Feedback to their Teachers Katherine Wisener, Kimberlee Hart, Erik Driessen, Cary Cuncic, Kiran Veerapen, Kevin Eva Perspectives on Medical Education.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Misperceptions and Missed Opportunities: A Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Evaluating Surgical Teachers Emily A. Flom, Nathan A. Coppersmith, Peter S. Yoo Journal of Surgical Education.2023; 80(11): 1663. CrossRef
Only When They Seek: Exploring Supervisor and Resident Perspectives and Positions on Upward Feedback Subha Ramani, Rachelle C. W. Lee-Krueger, Amanda Roze des Ordons, Jessica Trier, Heather Armson, Karen D. Könings, Jocelyn M. Lockyer Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions.2022; 42(4): 249. CrossRef
Third year medical students impersonalize and hedge when providing negative upward feedback to clinical faculty Doreen M. Olvet, Joanne M. Willey, Jeffrey B. Bird, Jill M. Rabin, R. Ellen Pearlman, Judith Brenner Medical Teacher.2021; 43(6): 700. CrossRef
Faculty Perceptions of Formative Feedback from Medical Students Lynne Robins, Sherilyn Smith, Amanda Kost, Heidi Combs, Patricia A. Kritek, Eileen J. Klein Teaching and Learning in Medicine.2020; 32(2): 168. CrossRef
Surgeons have an opportunity to improve teaching quality through feedback provision Katherine M. Heckman, Renaid B. Kim, Anderson Lee, Emma Chang, Niki Matusko, Rishindra M. Reddy, David T. Hughes, Gurjit Sandhu Journal of Surgical Research.2018; 229: 164. CrossRef