A Content Analysis of Dental Education Research as Reported in Two Journals

Abstract

Little systematic information has been collected about the nature and types of studies published in dental education journals. The goals of this study were to conduct a content analysis of articles published in dental education journals in two recent years, describe the type of research published, identify possible gaps, and propose future agendas. A content analysis of articles published in two leading dental education journals was performed for the years 2003 and 2008 with 253 articles reviewed. Most articles were descriptive and observational in nature. Curriculum was the most common topic of study addressed. The mean number of authors per article increased slightly over time, and authors held mostly a combination of D.D.S. and M.S. degrees or Ph.D. degrees. A review of the literature was present and critically discussed in almost three-quarters of the articles studied. One-third of the articles mentioned ethics review or approval. Most of the studies were conducted in North America, followed by Europe. About one-third of the articles reported a source of funding. A plea is made for more systematic studies of the effectiveness of instructional and curricular innovations and more clariication studies to better understand

Using multiple measures to evaluate a dental faculty development program

“…Sukotjo et al. 's content analysis of articles in dental education journals in 2003 and 2008 revealed that only seven articles (3%) addressed faculty development. They also found that just 8% of published studies on any topic employed multiple outcome measures, mostly a combination of surveys and qualitative or correlational measures.…”

The funding sources of implantology research in the period 2008‐2017: A bibliometric analysis

“…Nevertheless, the overall trend during the 2008‐2017 study period shows a progressive increase in the percentage of articles describing funded research, an average of 35.09% of all published works. This is a lower proportion than the 44.3% found by Barão et al (which only analyzed five implant dentistry journals manually) but similar to the study by Sukotjo et al in which 30% of articles on dental education received funding. This high acceptance rate of funded research might be explained by the good design provided by research departments of companies working together with University experts.…”

“…This differed from other nondental medical fields in which private companies usually play a larger role in research funding . In any case, it has been observed that in some cases, funding from private commercial sources may generate bias due to selective study design that favors market interests …”

Does our research tool kit equip us to make generalisable claims about dental education?

“…A study of characteristics of articles in the European Journal of Dental Education and the Journal of Dental Education between 2003 and 2008 was published in October 2010 (10). That study explored a wider range of features of the literature (such as funding and topic) but found that more than half of studies were ‘observational’ or ‘descriptive’, and one‐third were ‘surveys’.…”