1741-2358/asset/GER_left.gif?v=1&s=da715700da4ce3866857e1498d683b659a9c16db)
1741-2358/asset/GER_right.gif?v=1&s=06c0a99029e7652f79904890895f7e27813e86e7)
Undergraduate teaching in gerodontology in Leipzig and Zürich – a comparison of different approaches
Article first published online: 22 JUN 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00277.x
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 The Gerodontology Society and John Wiley & Sons A/S
Additional Information
How to Cite
Nitschke, I., Reiber, T. and Sobotta, B. A. (2009), Undergraduate teaching in gerodontology in Leipzig and Zürich – a comparison of different approaches. Gerodontology, 26: 172–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00277.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 11 AUG 2009
- Article first published online: 22 JUN 2009
- Accepted 26 November 2008
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- undergraduate education;
- geriatric dentistry;
- programme evaluation;
- extramural training;
- long-term care facility
Objective: To evaluate undergraduate students’ attitude towards the clinical components of the Leipzig (LPEG) and Zürich (ZPEG) Programmes of Education in Gerodontology.
Background: Undergraduate student education is the seedbed for conscientious professionals. Extramural clinical education contributes to the formation of positive attitudes. Students in Zürich participate in three clinical activities (in-house gerodontology clinic, extramural acute geriatrics ward, mobile dental service), in Leipzig they visit a long-term care facility on six occasions within 4 years.
Methods: A structured questionnaire with 10 items was administered to students in Leipzig [n = 34, 70.6% female, mean age 25.8 (SD 3.04) years] at the beginning and after completion of gerodontology training and to students in Zürich [n = 33, 48.5% female, mean age 27.0 (SD 3.28) years] on three occasions after clinical training. Students indicated the degree of their agreement with seven statements presented using a 5-point scale. A choice of responses which characterised the course was offered for assessment.
Results: Close collaboration with dental tutors, while self-treating patients in the mobile dental service (mobiDent™) attracted the most positive responses. Ratings from students completing their training in Leipzig were less favourable than their initial responses.
Conclusion: The lack of a dental service and Leipzig students’ inability to offer treatment in the presence of disease was associated with frustrations. Practical training should go beyond dental examinations at a long-term care facility and include the opportunity for dental treatment. Personnel and equipment required for mobile treatment exceed resources available at most German dental schools.