Abstract
Purpose: Prior studies explored factors influencing dental study choice, but shifts from BDSc to DDS degrees in some countries impact demographics and motivations, potentially affecting the dental workforce. The aim of this study was to establish Australian DDS and BOH students’ sociodemographics and career motivations.
Methods: Questionnaires conducted in mid-2019 assessed sociodemographic profiles and career motivations. Statistical analysis utilized descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test.
Results: The overall response rate was 71.3%. DDS students had an average age of 25.2 years, while BOH students averaged 21.5 years. Most BOH (80.7%) and DDS students (52.0%) were female. They were mainly single, local, Australian citizens from metropolitan areas. Self-motivation ranked highest, particularly for DDS students (P < 0.05). Significant motivators included healthcare occupation, helping others, interesting career, and flexible hours (P < 0.05). DDS students were more motivated by flexible hours and independence (P < 0.05), while females emphasized a healthcare profession (P = 0.003). International students were motivated by being their own boss (P = 0.003), and private school graduates valued lifestyle within the profession (P = 0.049).
Conclusion: Despite sociodemographic changes, the main motivations for studying dentistry remain consistent. DDS students prioritized lifestyle factors such as time and remuneration over BOH students.
Introduction
The reasons for pursuing a career in dentistry have been extensively studied in a wide range of countries. A variety of motivating factors have been identified including ‘caring for and helping others’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘working with other people’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘flexible hours’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘independence’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘financial reward’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘status and prestige’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], ‘interest in science’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], and ‘parental influence’ [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
These factors are prioritized differently according to gender [2,3,5,6,8,10,15], ethnicity [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14], and prior background in dentistry [3,9,11]. Males appear to value ‘financial reward’ [3,6,10], ‘self-employment’ [5,6,10,15], ‘status and prestige’ [2], and the ‘business aspect of dentistry’ [8,15] more than females who place greater importance on ‘helping others’ [6,15] and ‘interacting with others’ [3,5].
Differences in motivation also exist worldwide. Studies conducted in Sweden [9], Australia [1,3,10,12], the US [14], and the UK [2] found that the main motivating factors for students were caring for and helping others, and interest in the field. On the other hand, factors such as prestige, family expectations, and flexibility were highly valued in Jordan [6], Japan [9], Iran [7], India [11], Nigeria [4], Peru [5], and the US [8].
It has also been reported that parents are more influential in certain ethnic groups [3,9,11]. In Australia, the dental educational system offers different pathways for aspiring dental professionals. One prominent approach is the Melbourne Model, which has a unique framework that is followed by some universities, including the University of Melbourne. Under this model, students undertake a three-year undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree, followed by a four-year graduate entry Bachelor of Dental Science (DDS) program. The DDS course is a postgraduate degree program, first introduced in 2011 as part of The Melbourne Model, replacing the Bachelor of Dental Science (BDSc) undergraduate degree. While the majority of BOH places are commonwealth supported places (CSP), the DDS degree largely consists of full-fee places (FFP). In contrast, other institutions offer a Bachelor of Oral Health (BOH) degree, typically requiring direct entry from high school. The BOH program focuses on oral health therapy and dental hygiene, whereas the DDS program provides comprehensive training in dentistry, including diagnosis, treatment, and preventive care. Candidates interested in the DDS course usually apply after completing their undergraduate degree, while those pursuing BOH apply directly after high school.
The DDS program takes four years to complete after the initial undergraduate degree, while the BOH degree generally requires three years of full-time study. Upon graduation, both DDS and BOH graduates are granted clinical permission to practice, but the DDS degree confers a Doctor title, highlighting its advanced level of training. Challenges distinct to the Australian dental profession include personnel shortages in rural areas and the ongoing need to maintain motivation and interest for a skilled workforce. Australia’s dental education offers diverse opportunities, equipping aspiring professionals to contribute effectively to oral health.
With these premises in mind, a cross-sectional study of Melbourne Dental School (MDS) students was conducted to investigate the sociodemographic profiles and career motivations of DDS and BOH students. The sociodemographic profiles and career motivations of BDSc and BOH students at MDS have been previously studied in 2006 [3] and 2014 [12] respectively. However, career motivations are constantly subject to change, with changes in the main motivations of dental students previously reported during a 9-year period [14]. Additionally, following the transition of the dental course from an undergraduate to a postgraduate degree, the profile of the dental cohort has changed. Compared to BDSc students, DDS students are older, have completed a bachelor’s degree, and face a much larger amount of student debt. Furthermore, while the differences in career motivations between BDSc students and BOH have been studied by Mariño et al. [10], no study has investigated this since 2012.
An improved understanding of the sociodemographic profiles and career motivations of DDS and BOH students may help provide valuable insights into the future Victorian oral health practitioner workforce, their priorities, and future career decisions. This may also aid in the development of future recruitment strategies to improve access for underrepresented individuals within the dental cohort.
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne (1852882.3). Questionnaires were used to collect data from 2nd year, 3rd year, and 4th year DDS students and 2nd and 3rd year BOH students in mid-2019. Students received the questionnaire as a paper copy following a brief summary during a regularly scheduled class. Participants were not given any incentives, and consent was implied through the completion and submission of the survey.
The questionnaire consisted of two sections: sociodemographics (14 items) and career motivations (21 items) (Supplementary material). Sociodemographic profile information collected included age, gender, relationship status, country of citizenship, residency, and schooling profile. Participants were also asked about their course payment method and their original career preferences.
The career motivation section was adapted from a previous study published by Mariño RJ et al. [3]. These involved participants indicating on a five-point scale (1 = no influence, to 5 = strong influence) the amount of influence various individuals and factors had on their decision for choosing dentistry.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) were computed to provide an overview of the responses. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare responses between subgroups. Data were analyzed using SPSS ver. 1.0.0.1347 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and statistical significance was based on probability values (P) less than 0.05.
Results
Response rate
From 260 DDS students, 172 responded to the surveys, giving a response rate of 66.2%. From 61 BOH students, 57 responded to the surveys hence giving them a response rate of 93.4%, providing an overall response rate of 71.3%.
Sociodemographic profile
The age of MDS students at the time of the survey ranged from 18-36 years, with the mean for DDS students being 25.2 (±6.2) years and for BOH students being 21.5 (±3.1) years (Table 1). The proportion of female students in the BOH program (80.7%) was significantly higher than that in the DDS program (52.0%). Students from both degrees were predominantly single, local, held Australian citizenship, and from metropolitan areas. The DDS cohort also had a large proportion of Canadian international students (19.2%), which was not observed in the BOH cohort.
Self- or family-funding was the most common (76.3%) form of payment for DDS students with government loans being the second most common (69.6%) (Table 1). For BOH students, government loans were the most common form of payment, with 77.2% of students reporting doing so. In contrast to DDS students, no BOH students reported using bank loans and scholarships as a source of payment for their degree.
Table 1 Distribution of sociodemographic characteristics of current MDS students graduating between 2019-2021
|
Degree |
| Characteristic |
DDS (n = 172) |
BOH (n = 57) |
| Mean age (SD) |
25.2 (6.2) |
21.5 (3.1) |
| Gender (%) |
|
|
| female |
52.0 |
80.7* |
| male |
48.0 |
19.3 |
| Relationship status (%) |
|
|
| single |
85.7 |
91.2 |
| married |
13.7 |
5.3 |
| other |
0.6 |
3.5 |
| Student status (%) |
|
|
| local |
61.2 |
80.7 |
| interstate |
10.6 |
14.0 |
| international |
28.2* |
5.3 |
| Country of citizenship (%) |
|
|
| Australia |
68.3 |
80.7* |
| Canada |
19.2 |
0.0 |
| other |
12.5 |
19.3 |
| Place of birth (%) |
|
|
| metropolitan |
94.2 |
97.8 |
| rural |
5.8 |
2.2 |
| Secondary education† (%) |
|
|
| Australian public |
27.5 |
50.9* |
| Australian private |
47.4 |
38.6 |
| overseas public |
19.3 |
1.8 |
| overseas private |
10.5 |
8.8 |
| Payment methods† (%) |
|
|
| government loan |
69.6 |
77.2 |
| family/own money |
76.3 |
26.3 |
| bank loan |
8.2 |
0.0 |
| scholarship |
6.4 |
1.8 |
| other |
1.2 |
0.0 |
†Multiple options could be selected; *denoted statistical significance between the degrees within the same sociodemographic characteristic (P < 0.05); SD, standard deviation, DDS, Doctor of Dental Surgery; BOH, Bachelor of Oral Health
Application process of students
Table 2 outlines the number of times current MDS students applied into DDS and BOH degree programs. The majority of DDS students applied only once into the DDS degree program, with the maximum number of times applied being greater than 5 times; with one student reporting doing so. One DDS student reported applying once into the BOH degree program. Similarly, the vast majority of BOH students reported only applying for the BOH degree once, with the maximum number of applications into BOH being 2. In contrast, a larger number of BOH students reported applying into the DDS degree program, with four students applying once and 1 applying more than 5 times.
Table 3 outlines the degree preference of MDS students. The majority of DDS students reported dentistry as their first preference (68%). Similarly, a majority of BOH students (54.5%) reported having oral health therapy as their first preference. The second most popular first preference for DDS students was medicine. For BOH students, the second most popular first preference was dentistry.
For DDS students, medicine was the most popular second preference (41.8%) followed by dentistry. In contrast, for BOH students, oral health therapy was the most popular second preference (27.5%), followed by science degrees (23.5%). BOH students had a wider range and variation of degrees as their first and second preference when compared to DDS students.
Table 2 Number of times current MDS students applied into either BOH or DDS degree
|
Number of current students from enrolled degree |
| Number of applications into DDS |
DDS |
BOH |
| 1 |
141 |
4 |
| 2 |
21 |
0 |
| 3 |
6 |
0 |
| 4 |
1 |
0 |
| 5+ |
1 |
1 |
| Number of applications into BOH |
DDS |
BOH |
| 1 |
1 |
52 |
| 2 |
0 |
3 |
| 3 |
0 |
0 |
| 4 |
0 |
0 |
| 5+ |
0 |
0 |
DDS, Doctor of Dental Surgery; BOH, Bachelor of Oral Health
Table 3 Order of degree preferences during application for current MDS students graduating between 2018-2021
|
DDS (n = 172) |
BOH (n = 57) |
First degree preference (%)
|
|
|
| dentistry |
68.0 |
28.1 |
| medicine |
29.6 |
8.8 |
| oral health therapy |
0.0 |
54.4 |
| other |
2.4 |
8.7 |
| Second degree preference (%) |
|
|
| medicine |
41.8 |
3.9 |
| dentistry |
34.0 |
2.0 |
| oral health therapy |
0.0 |
27.5 |
| science |
0.7 |
23.5 |
| other |
23.5 |
43.1 |
DDS, Doctor of Dental Surgery; BOH, Bachelor of Oral Health
Career choice motivations of MDS students
Self-motivation was the most important factor behind career choice for both BOH and DDS students (Table 4), and was significantly more influential for DDS students than BOH students. Career advisors and vocational counselors had a significantly greater influence on BOH students than on DDS students.
‘Desire to have a health care occupation’, ‘caring for and helping other people’, ‘interesting career’ and ‘flexible hours’ were the most motivating factors for students; while ‘better chance of entering and completing dental course than another course’ was the least motivating. Compared to BOH students, DDS students reported being significantly more motivated by ‘flexible hours’, ‘expected lifestyle within the profession’, ‘a career in dentistry will give me enough time with my family’, ‘desire to work with patients’, ‘monetary advantages of the profession’, ‘desire to work independently’, ’being my own boss’ and ‘better chance of entering and completing the dental course than another course’ (Table 5).
Females were more motivated by ‘the desire to have a health care profession’ compared to males (P = 0.003), and students aged 25-36 reported that the ‘desire to work independently’ (P = 0.0005) and ‘a career in dentistry will give me enough time for my family’ (P = 0.034) had a greater influence on their decision to study dentistry compared to those aged 18-24. In addition, ‘interesting career’ was significantly more motivating for local and interstate students (P = 0.012) in comparison to international students, who found ‘being my own boss’ significantly more motivating (P = 0.003). It was also found that current MDS students who graduated from private secondary schools were more motivated by ‘expected lifestyle within the profession’ in comparison to public secondary school graduates (P = 0.049).
Table 4 Degree of influence different motivating individuals had on the decision of current MDS students to choose a career in dentistry
Motivating individuals
|
Degree |
| DDS (n = 170) |
BOH (n = 56) |
| No influence |
Little influence |
Some influence |
Moderate influence |
Strong influence |
No influence |
Little influence |
Some influence |
Moderate influence |
Strong influence |
| Self-motivation* |
2.4% |
3.0% |
8.3% |
29.0% |
57.4% |
0.0% |
1.8% |
30.4% |
37.5% |
30.4% |
| Parents |
16.6% |
16.6% |
31.4% |
19.5% |
16.0% |
8.9% |
17.9% |
32.1% |
28.6% |
12.5% |
| Personal dentist, hygienist or dental therapist |
35.9% |
15.3% |
20.6% |
17.1% |
11.2% |
28.6% |
26.8% |
16.1% |
12.5% |
16.1% |
| Family members or friends who are oral health professionals |
46.7% |
15.0% |
13.8% |
13.8% |
10.8% |
37.5% |
12.5% |
21.4% |
21.4% |
7.1% |
| Family members or friends not within the oral health field |
44.1% |
20.0% |
20.0% |
12.4% |
3.5% |
39.3% |
21.4% |
25.0% |
10.7% |
3.6% |
| School teacher |
75.3% |
15.9% |
5.3% |
1.8% |
1.8% |
64.3% |
19.6% |
10.7% |
3.6% |
1.8% |
| Careers advisor/vocational counselor* |
69.2% |
16.0% |
13.0% |
1.2% |
0.6% |
55.4% |
19.6% |
10.7% |
10.7% |
3.6% |
*Denoted statistical significance between degrees within the same motivating individual group (P < 0.05); MDS, Melbourne Dental School; DDS, Doctor of Dental Surgery; BOH, Bachelor of Oral Health
Table 5 Degree of influence different motivating factors had on current MDS students’ decision to choose a career
Motivating individuals
|
Degree |
| DDS (n = 171) |
BOH (n =57) |
| No influence |
Little influence |
Some influence |
Moderate influence |
Strong influence |
No influence |
Little influence |
Some influence |
Moderate influence |
Strong influence |
| Caring for and helping other people |
1.2% |
1.8% |
9.4% |
32.4% |
55.3% |
0.0% |
1.8% |
15.8% |
42.1% |
40.4% |
| Flexible hours* |
1.8% |
1.8% |
9.9% |
31.0% |
55.6% |
15.8% |
19.3% |
24.6% |
31.6% |
8.8% |
| Expected lifestyle perceived within the profession* |
0.0% |
1.8% |
11.7% |
35.1% |
51.5% |
1.8% |
5.3% |
24.6% |
49.1% |
19.3% |
| Desire to have a healthcare occupation |
1.2% |
2.9% |
10.5% |
22.2% |
63.2% |
0.0% |
3.5% |
15.8% |
28.1% |
52.6% |
| Interesting career |
0.6% |
2.9% |
15.2% |
30.4% |
50.9% |
0.0% |
3.5% |
8.8% |
42.1% |
45.6% |
| Interest in science |
0.6% |
7.6% |
14.1% |
32.4% |
45.3% |
3.5% |
10.5% |
26.3% |
26.3% |
33.3% |
| A career in dentistry will give me enough time with my family* |
4.1% |
3.5% |
14.7% |
28.8% |
48.8% |
14.0% |
26.3% |
33.3% |
21.1% |
5.3% |
| Desire to work with patients* |
3.5% |
7.6% |
12.3% |
27.5% |
49.1% |
1.8% |
1.8% |
21.1% |
42.1% |
33.3% |
| Monetary advantages of the profession* |
3.0% |
3.0% |
21.3% |
34.3% |
38.5% |
1.8% |
3.5% |
33.3% |
45.6% |
15.8% |
| Desire to work independently* |
2.3% |
7.0% |
18.7% |
30.4% |
41.5% |
5.3% |
8.8% |
33.3% |
42.1% |
10.5% |
| Being my own boss* |
5.9% |
12.4% |
20.6% |
27.6% |
33.5% |
21.1% |
14.0% |
33.3% |
21.1% |
10.5% |
| A career in dentistry offers job security |
5.8% |
11.7% |
24.6% |
31.6% |
26.3% |
7.0% |
3.5% |
29.8% |
38.6% |
21.1% |
| It is easy for dentists to find employment |
10.5% |
19.3% |
32.7% |
28.1% |
9.4% |
7.0% |
7.0% |
43.9% |
36.8% |
5.3% |
| Better chance of entering and completing dental course than another course* |
41.2% |
16.5% |
21.8% |
11.8% |
8.8% |
29.8% |
19.3% |
35.1% |
15.8% |
0.0% |
* Denoted statistical significance between degrees within the same motivating individual group (P < 0.05); MDS, Melbourne Dental School; DDS, Doctor of Dental Surgery; BOH, Bachelor of Oral Health
Discussion
It has been a number of years since the sociodemographic profiles and career motivations of MDS students have been investigated [3,10,12]. Since then, there have been various changes to the course structure, including the transition of the dental course from an undergraduate to a postgraduate program. Thesefindings indicate that the sociodemographic profiles of BOH and DDS students have changed, but the main motivators for pursuing a career in dentistry remain similar to those previously reported in the literature [3,10,12].
Consistent with previous studies, females constituted the majority of both degrees, particularly for BOH [3,10,12]. Although males only made up one-fifth of the BOH cohort, the proportion of male BOH students at MDS appears to have increased since 2011, when only 11.3% of students were male [12]. These results support suggestions of a trend that the proportion of males enrolled in BOH programs is increasing [10]. While males only made up 1.4% of practicing oral health therapists in 2003 [Dental therapist labour force in Australia, 2003. Adelaide: AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit, Report no. 29, 2006], in 2017, 12.1% of practitioners were male [Oral health therapists 2017 factsheet. Canberra: Australian Department of Health, 2019]. However, it should be noted that the predominance of females in respondents may also be influenced by gender bias present in survey participation, where females are found to respond disproportionately higher to surveys than males [Smith WG, Does gender influence online survey participation? a record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. San José State University, 2008].
The majority of students resided in metropolitan areas. Previous studies have reported higher proportions of rural students, with up to 7.8% of DDS students [3] and 15.1% of BOH students [12] coming from rural areas. The disparity in higher education outcomes between individuals coming from metropolitan and rural areas has been recognized as a concern for years. The results of the present study indicate that despite strategies to improve higher education opportunities, rural students still represent a small proportion of MDS students. The uneven distribution of dental practitioners within rural and metropolitan areas is also a concern. As students of a rural origin are more likely to return to rural areas for employment [16], increasing opportunities for students in rural areas to study dentistry may help reduce this divide. However, it should also be noted that rural universities within Australia also offer several oral health practitioner courses. Additionally, the Australian Government has announced several new initiatives that will be implemented in 2021 as part of its National Regional, Rural, and Remote Education Strategy, with the aim of improving tertiary education outcomes for students from rural, remote, and regional areas. Thus, further studies following the implementation of this program across various universities in Australia will help identify the effects of this strategy on the enrollment of rural students in dental courses.
The results of the present study indicate that a high proportion of DDS students completed secondary education at private schools and pay for their education with self- or family-funding. This is in contrast to previous studies surveying BDSc students, which found that equal proportions of students graduated from public and private schools [3,10]. The self- or family funding pattern was not observed in the BOH cohort. These findings suggest that a greater proportion of dental students at MDS now come from a higher socioeconomic background. The majority of places available within the DDS program are FFP, requiring a current total course payment of $331,017. The impact this may have on the career decisions of new dental graduates is unknown. However, it has been reported that FFP students are more likely to choose to work in the private sector than CSP students [16]. Given the existing imbalance in the number of dental practitioners employed in public and private sectors, this may present an opportunity for further research.
MDS students reported that self-motivation and parents had the greatest influence on their decision to study dentistry. This is consistent with past studies which have also found that the decision to pursue a career in dentistry is largely self-motivated [3,10,12]. Students reported that careers advisors and schoolteachers had the least influence on their career choice. School teachers and career advisors are in an ideal position to discuss potential dental career pathways with students and could increase awareness within underrepresented groups. However, given that students consistently report that they have little influence on their career choice [3,10,12], it may be more effective to increase awareness via other means.
A variety of factors influenced MDS students’ decision to study dentistry, indicating that no single motivation is associated with a decision to study dentistry. DDS students reported that the greatest motivating factors for pursuing a career in dentistry were ‘caring for and helping others’, ‘flexible hours’, ‘expected lifestyle’, ‘desire to have a healthcare profession’, and ‘interest in science’. Although there are variations, the results are largely similar to the results of a study investigating the career motivations of Australian BDSc students in 2006, which found that the factors that had the greatest influence on the decision to study dentistry were ‘desire to work for and with people’, ‘expected lifestyle’, ‘interest in the profession’, and ‘desire to work independently’ [3]. The motivating factors for BOH students also appear similar to those reported in 2014 [12].
Compared to BOH students, DDS students were significantly more motivated by factors related to independence, lifestyle, and generous remuneration. This is consistent with the findings of a previous study which investigated the difference in motivating factors between BDSc and BOH students [10]. While this may be related to the older age of DDS students, these differences were not observed between the 18-24-year-old and 25-36-year-old age groups.
Although both genders were motivated by similar factors overall, females were significantly more motivated by the ‘desire to have a healthcare occupation’. Unlike previous studies, the results of the present study did not indicate that males were more motivated by monetary advantages [3,6,10] and independence [5,6,10,15].
This study provides a snapshot of some of the future dental workforce in Victoria (and beyond, given the proportion of overseas students in the DDS cohort), and importantly reveals some of the key motivating influences and barriers to choosing a career as a dental professional. It is clear that there are underrepresented groups within the student cohort, and that strategies should be considered to broaden the intake of students and to recruit from more diverse backgrounds. There is scope to broaden this research to capture the sociodemographics, motivators, and barriers to dentistry and oral health therapy students across other Australian institutions to better understand the future of the dental workforce in an Australian context.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne. The authors would like to also thank Clare McNally, Gaurav Malhotra, Gregory Steele, India Carr, and Syed Zaidi for their contributions.
Data Availability Statements
Data generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Supplementary material is available in J-STAGE Data. https://doi.org/10.60334/data.josnusd.24779298
References
- 1. Brand AA, Chikte UM, Thomas CJ (1996) Choosing dentistry as a career--a profile of entering students (1992) to the University of Sydney, Australia. Aust Dent J 41, 198-205.
- 2. Stewart FM, Drummond JR, Carson L, Hoad Reddick G (2004) The future of the profession--a survey of dental school applicants. Br Dent J 197, 569-573.
- 3. Mariño RJ, Morgan MV, Winning T, Thomson WM, Marshall RI, Gotjamanos T et al. (2006) Sociodemographic backgrounds and career decisions of Australian and New Zealand dental students. J Dent Educ 70, 169-178.
- 4. Orenuga OO, da Costa OO (2006) Characteristics and study motivation of clinical dental students in Nigerian universities. J Dent Educ 70, 996-1003.
- 5. Bernabé E, Icaza JL, Delgado-Angulo EK (2006) Reasons for choosing dentistry as a career: a study involving male and female first-year students in Peru. Eur J Dent Educ 10, 236-241.
- 6. Al-Bitar ZB, Sonbol HN, Al-Omari IK (2008) Reasons for choosing dentistry as a career by Arab dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 12, 247-251.
- 7. Khami MR, Murtomaa H, Jafarian M, Vehkalahti MM, Virtanen JI (2008) Study motives and career choices of Iranian dental students. Med Princ Pract 17, 221-226.
- 8. Hawley NJ, Ditmyer MM, Sandoval VA (2008) Predental students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of the dental profession. J Dent Educ 72, 1458-1464.
- 9. Karibe H, Kawakami T, Suzuki A, Warita S, Ogata K, Aoyagi K et al. (2009) Career choice and attitudes towards dental education amongst dental students in Japan and Sweden. Eur J Dent Educ 13, 80-86.
- 10. Mariño R, Au-Yeung W, Habibi E, Morgan M (2012) Sociodemographic profile and career decisions of Australian oral health profession students. J Dent Educ 76, 1241-1249.
- 11. Aggarwal A, Mehta S, Gupta D, Sheikh S, Pallagatti S, Singh R et al. (2012) Dental students’ motivations and perceptions of dental professional career in India. J Dent Educ 76, 1532-1539.
- 12. Mariño RJ, Barrow SL, Morgan MV (2014) Australian/New Zealand Bachelor of Oral Health students: sociodemographics and career decisions. Eur J Dent Educ 18, 180-186.
- 13. Du Toit J, Jain S, Montalli V, Govender U (2014) Dental students’ motivations for their career choice: an international investigative report. J Dent Educ 78, 605-613.
- 14. Shaikh MA, Inglehart MR (2018) Dental and dental hygiene students’ career choice motivations in 2009-17: a mixed methods approach. J Dent Educ 82, 848-856.
- 15. Scarbecz M, Ross JA (2002) Gender differences in first-year dental students’ motivation to attend dental school. J Dent Educ 66, 952-961.
- 16. Silva M, Phung K, Huynh W, Wong H, Lu J, Aijaz A et al. (2006) Factors influencing recent dental graduates’ location and sector of employment in Victoria. Aust Dent J 51, 46-51.
