Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.37(4) > 1057575

TOOLS
Lee, Lee, Ju, Park, Lim, Oh, and Lee: Factors related to busyness of practicing dentists
Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2013;37(4):224-231.

Published online: 12 December 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2013.37.4.224

Factors related to busyness of practicing dentists

Kang-Ju Lee1, Na-Gyung Lee1, Hyun-Jeong Ju1, Sun-Hwa Park1, 2, Cha-Young Lim1, Hyo-Won Oh1, Heung-Soo Lee1

1Department of Preventive and Public Health Dentistry, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry, Iksan, Korea

2Department of Dental Hygiene, Byuksung College, Gimje, Korea

Corresponding Author: Heung-Soo Lee Department of Preventive and Public Health Dentistry, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry, 460 IKsan-daero, Iksan 570-749, Korea Tel: +82-63-850-6851 Fax: +82-63-850-6851 E-mail: smagn@wonkwang.ac.kr

Received 30 August 2013       Revised 15 November 2013       Accepted 13 December 2013

Copyright © 2013 Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

This study investigated the busyness of dentists and analyzed factors related to busyness in these professionals.

Methods

The subjects were 243 practicing dentists. Surveys were carried out via mail. Busyness was measured by using the Mumma scale. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

The dentists’ busyness index was 1.91. Of the participants, 40% of practicing dentists wanted more patients, 30.8% did not overwork but did not want more patients, and 27.1% overworked and did not want more patients. The busyness index was significantly related to the number of dental hygienists and dentists. However, it did not differ with respect to the number of assistant nurses.

Conclusions

The busyness index should be considered when developing relevant human resource plans.

Keywords: Busyness index, Dental manpower, Supply and demand for dentists

References

1. Moon JW, Kim KH. Health administration and management. 4th ed. Seoul: Gyechukmunhwasa;1998. p. 43–49.
2. Yang PM. Health care economics. 1st ed. Seoul: Nanam Publishing House;1999. p. 219–245.
3. Moon HS. A study on the busyness of practicing dentists in the Republic of Korea. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 1994; 18:339–366.
4. Mumma RD. Report of the man power and education committee. J Public Health Dent. 1974; 34:52–55.
5. Henderson WG. Measuring the supply and demand for dentists in a population. Am J Public Health. 1976; 66:70–72.
crossref
6. Henderson JW. Health economics and policy. 4th ed.South-Western: Cengage Learning;2009. p. 314–315.
7. DeFrise GH, Barker BD. Assessing dental manpower requirements: alternative approaches for state and local planning. Cambridge: Mass Ballinger Pub;1982. p. 29–36.
8. Cho HG, Park DY, Ma DS, Jung SH. The study of propriety of supply and demand for dentists. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2004; 28:399–414.
9. Lee WJ, Kim JB. A study on the demand and supply for dentists in Seoul Capital City. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 1982; 6:7–16.
10. Park SH, Kim JB. A study on the supply and demand for dentists in Gwang - Ju City. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 1982; 6:27–35.
11. Oh YH, Shin HS, Lee SY, Kim JH. Geographical distribution of health workforce in Korea and its policy implication. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2007. p. 170–171.
12. Choi EY, Jo JG, Kim JS, Moon HS. The supply and demand projection of dentists and the evaluation of its appropriateness. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 1999; 23:301–315.
13. Lee SY, Oh YH, Song HJ, Kim EJ, Jo SH. The present condition of supply and demand for healthcare resources and management policy implica. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Af-fairs;2003. p. 119.
14. Park KC, Kim DK, Kim JB, Kwon HK, Song KB, Hong SJ, et al. Preventive dentistry. Seoul: Jungmunkag;1998. p. 35.

Table 1.
Characteristics of study subjects
Variables Classification N (%) Mean±SD
Type of hospital Private 215 (88.5)
Co-run 26 (10.7)
Etc. 2 (0.8)
Total 243 (100.0)
Gender Male 229 (94.2)
Female 14 (5.8)
Total 243 (100.0)
Age (yrs) 30-35 22 (9.1) 43.3±5.6 (minium 30 yrs - maximum 65 yrs)
36-40 56 (23.0)
41-45 72 (29.6)
46-50 78 (32.1)
≥51 15 (6.2)
Total 243 (100.0)
Education level DDS 115 (47.5)
MSD 55 (22.7)
PhD 72 (29.8)
Total 242 (100.0)
Graduate in dental residency program Yes 44 (18.3)
No 196 (81.7)
Total 243 (100.0)
License holding period (yrs) ≤10 44 (18.3) 16.3±5.8 (minium 4 yrs - maximum 30 yrs)
11-20 130 (53.9)
≥21 67 (27.8)
Total 241 (100.0)
Job tenure (yrs) ≤5 53 (22.1) 10.9±6.4 (minium 1 yr - maximum 36 yrs)
6-10 78 (32.5)
11-15 37 (15.4)
≥16 72 (30.0)
Total 240 (100.0)
Hospital location Urban 190 (88.0)
Non-urban 190 88 0 26 (12.0)
Total 216 (100.0)
Table 2.
The busyness of practicing dentists
Grade Criterion N %
1 The dentist was not busy enough and wanted more patients 96 40.0
2 The dentist provided care for all who requested it, had enough patients and did not feel overworked 74 30.8
3 The dentist provided care for all who requested it but felt overworked 65 27.1
4 The dentist was too busy to treat all requests 5 2.1
Busyness index 1.91±0.87
Table 3.
Busyness index according to socio-demographic characteristics
Variables Classification N M±SD P-value
Type of hospital Private 212 1.89±0.86 (118.55) 0.338
Co-run 26 2.08±0.89 (132.75)
Etc. 2 2.50±0.71 (168.25)
Gender Male 227 1.92±0.86 (120.93) 0.671
Female 13 1.85±0.99 (113.00)
Age (yrs) 30-35 22 2.23±1.07 (140.52) 0.106
36-40 55 1.89±0.83 (119.72)
41-45 72 1.72±0.86 (105.27)
46-50 77 2.03±0.83 (130.03)
≥51 14 1.86±0.78 (118.04)
Education level DDS 114 1.79±0.83 (110.94) 0.066
MSD 55 2.13±0.92 (135.47)
PhD 70 1.94±0.57 (122.59)
Graduate in dental residency program Yes 44 2.05±0.89 (128.74) 0.268
No 193 1.89±0.86 (116.78)
License holding period (yrs) ≤10 43 2.02±0.96 (126.41) 0.159
11-20 129 1.81±0.86 (112.15)
≥21 66 2.03±0.82 (129.37)
Job tenure (yrs) ≤5 53 1.89±0.95 (115.41) 0.604
6-10 77 1.87±0.85 (116.18)
11-15 37 1.86±0.95 (113.54)
≥16 70 2.01±0.79 (127.71)
Hospital location Urban 187 1.91±0.86 (106.07) 0.530
Non-urban 26 2.04±0.96 (113.71)

(): Mean rank of Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 4.
Busyness index according to number of manpower in dental clinic
Variables Classification N M±SD P-value
No. of dentists 1 179 1.82±0.84 (113.76) 0.008
2 25 1.96±0.79 (125.76)
≥3 36 2.33±0.93 (150.35)
No. of dental hygienist None 53 1.60±0.74 (97.48) 0.010
1 65 1.83±0.76 (115.78)
2 41 2.05±0.87 (131.13)
≥3 81 2.11±0.96 (133.97)
No. of nurse assistant None 48 1.79±0.87 (110.89) 0.238
1 62 1.89±0.87 (118.90)
2 65 1.85±0.85 (115.60)
≥3 65 2.09±0.86 (134.03)
No. of etc. None 116 1.82±0.80 (114.21) 0.129
1 74 1.89±0.93 (117.93)
2 27 2.07±0.87 (132.78)
≥3 23 2.26±0.92 (146.09)
Perceptions of staffing adequacy Not a few 34 1.65±0.77 (97.82) 0.128
Adequate 164 1.98±0.85 (122.27)
A few 38 1.97±0.97 (120.72)

(): Mean rank of Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 5.
Busyness index according to number of patients for six months
Variables Classification N M±SD P-value
Daily maximum patient ≤30 54 1.46±0.64 (80.46) <0.001
31-60 116 1.94±0.86 (113.90)
61-90 38 2.16±0.92 (128.08)
≥91 14 2.71±0.73 (166.36)
Daily minium patient ≤10 64 1.39±0.61 (74.92) <0.001
11-20 81 1.88±0.86 (109.41)
21-30 37 2.24±0.80 (135.86)
31-40 22 2.78±0.83 (137.27)
≥41 18 2.78±0.73 (169.39)
Daily average patient ≤15 37 1.24±0.50 (64.58) <0.001
16-30 105 1.80±0.80 (105.99)
31-45 42 2.24±0.85 (137.11)
46-60 29 2.24±0.83 (137.41)
≥61 14 3.00±0.55 (186.86)
Number variation in patients Increase 68 2.21±0.78 (140.38) <0.001
Decrease 165 1.79±0.88 (107.37)

(): Mean rank of Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 6.
Busyness index according to competition and revenue of dental clinic
Variables Classification N M±SD P-value
Competition Quite high 220 1.91±0.86 (120.43) 0.953
Quite low 20 1.95±0.10 (121.33)
Revenue Quite high 111 2.25±0.86 (143.57) <0.001
Quite low 124 1.60±0.75 (95.11)

(): Mean rank of Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 7.
Busyness index according to practicing preventive programs for six months
Variables Classification N M±SD P-value
Pit and Fissure Sealing More than 1 person in a day 34 2.41±0.82 (156.99) 0.004
3-4 persons in a week 51 1.90±0.92 (118.84)
1-2 persons in a week 68 1.79±0.78 (112.47)
Rarely 86 1.80±0.85 (112.02)
Fluoride Topical Application More than 1 person in a day 5 1.80±0.84 (113.40) 0.427
3-4 persons in a week 18 2.22±0.88 (144.64)
1-2 persons in a week 30 1.87±0.94 (115.22)
Rarely 187 1.89±0.86 (119.21)

(): Mean rank of Kruskal-Wallis test. P-value determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.

TOOLS
Similar articles