UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Current employment characteristics and career intentions of Lithuanian dentists Janulyte, Vilija; Aleksejuniene, Jolanta; Puriene, Alina; Peciuliene, Vytaute; Benzian, Habib Dec 20, 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-12960_2014_Article_465.pdf [ 347.82kB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0224009.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0224009-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0224009-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0224009-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0224009-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0224009-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0224009-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

RESEARCHCurrent employment char, Vplodatier dental care delivery model including both private in quality of care on the one hand and high patient co-Janulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74visit both [3]. In 2014, the population of LithuaniaVilnius, LithuaniaFull list of author information is available at the end of the articleand public dentistry. Today, public dentistry providesfree dental treatment for all children, whereas adultsonly have to cover the expenses for dental materialsthat are used for their treatment. Although Lithuania ispayments on the other [3]. Voluntary health insuranceplans just recently emerged in Lithuania. There are veryfew companies which provide voluntary dental insur-ance for their employees, and those seeking privatedental care usually cover the treatment costs privately.About 41% of Lithuanian residents visit public dentalinstitutions, 33% choose the private sector, and 26%* Correspondence: janulytevilija@yahoo.com†Equal contributors1Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Zalgiris st. 115,a public and free-of-charge dental care system to a two-inquired about demographics, different employment-related aspects (practice type and location, working hours,perceived lack of patients, etc.), and future career intentions (intent to emigrate, to change profession, or the timing ofretirement). The final response rate was 67.6% corresponding to 2,008 respondents.Results: The majority of all dentists work full or part-time in the private dental sector, more than one third of themowns a private practice or rents a dental chair. A minority of dentists works in the public dental sector. According tothe survey, 26.6% of general dentists and 39.2% of dental specialists works overtime (>40 hours per week; P <0.001)and practice in multiple clinics (1.4 ± 0.6 and 2.0 ± 1.2, respectively; P <0.001). One third of general dentists (31.3%) anddental specialists (31.4%) stated to have a low number of patients (P >0.05). The majority (68.9% of general dentists and65.9% of dental specialists) plans to work after the retirement age (P >0.05). Emigration as an option for theirprofessional career is being considered by 10.8% of general dentists and 8.3% of dental specialists (P >0.05). Workingeither full or part-time in private practices (OR = 4.3) and younger age (≤35 years; OR = 2.2) are the two strongestpredictors for a perceived insufficient number of patients.Conclusions: One third of dentists in Lithuania work long hours and lack patients. Many dentists practice inmultiple locations and plan to retire after the official retirement age. Some dentists and dental specialists plan toemigrate. The perceived shortcomings within the dental care system and workforce planning of dentists need tobe addressed.Keywords: Career intentions, Dentists, Emigration, Working conditionsBackgroundThe structure of professional dental care in Lithuaniahas gone through substantial changes since the countryregained independence in 1991 [1]. During this time,dental care gradually and increasingly transitioned fromcategorized as a high-income country by the WorldBank, with a GDP of USD 42.34 billion in 2012, it hasrecently been facing economic difficulties [2]. Againstthis backdrop, the government does not allocate suffi-cient monetary resources to offer free, good qualitydental treatment for all citizens. This results in deficitsintentions of Lithuanian dVilija Janulyte1*†, Jolanta Aleksejuniene2†, Alina Puriene1†AbstractBackground: The present survey explored the current emgeneral dentists and specialists.Methods: A census sampling method was employed with© 2014 Janulyte et al.; licensee BioMed CentraCommons Attribution License (http://creativecreproduction in any medium, provided the orDedication waiver (http://creativecommons.orunless otherwise stated.Open Accessacteristics and careerentistsytaute Peciuliene1† and Habib Benzian3†yment profile and future career intentions of Lithuanianta collected by means of a structured questionnaire thatl. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creativeommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andiginal work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domaing/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,Janulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 2 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74amounted to 2.9 million residents, characterized by anageing population structure [4,5]. The prevalence ofcaries and periodontal problems is high when com-pared with other European countries [6,7].Training for dentists and dental specialists is offered attwo universities in Lithuania. Dentists apply for their li-cense after the 5-year undergraduate program. After an-other 3 years of postgraduate studies they can alsoacquire a dental specialist license. Six dental specialtiesare recognized in Lithuania, including oral surgeon, peri-odontologist, endodontist, prosthodontist, orthodontist,and pediatric dentist. About 150 dentists and 24 dentalspecialists have graduated annually over the last 3 years.Nevertheless, while the number of graduates in dentistryhas been increasing by approximately one third duringthe last 3 years, the number of graduated dental special-ists remained the same [8].Since the country’s independence, the number of den-tists in Lithuania has increased from an average of 5.5dentists/10,000 inhabitants in 1992, to 6.5 dentists in2002, and to 12.4 dentists in 2013 [9,10]. As a compari-son, the average for the European Union amounted to6.7 dentists per 10,000 residents in 2012 [9]. Similar toother countries, a concentration of dentists is found inthe big city areas of Lithuania [11-13]. A general tendencyto an oversupply of dental professionals has been reported[14,15]. The tense situation in the dental care market re-sults in strong competition between colleagues and maybe a push factor for emigration to countries with a short-age of dentists. International migration of dental profes-sionals is a known phenomenon [16,17]. In Lithuania, thismay be reinforced because some European countries haveabolished all restrictions for international health work-force migration [18]. This deregulation has opened newprofessional possibilities for Lithuanian dentists, particu-larly since Lithuania joined the European Union in 2004.During the economic crisis in 2010, the intentions to emi-grate among general dentistry graduates amounted to26.9% [15].Analyzing different aspects of dentists’ current workingenvironment is important in understanding the structureof the dental workforce, and its possible strengths andshortcomings. The aim of the present study was, there-fore, to explore the current employment profile, workingconditions, and future career intentions of Lithuaniangeneral dentists and dental specialists.MethodsThe study was approved by the National Data ProtectionInspectorate (No. 2R-3247). An ethics approval was notrequired due to the nature of the study. Contact infor-mation (e-mail, address, telephone number) of all li-censed dentists in Lithuania was acquired from theLicense Registry of the Lithuanian Dental Chamber inOctober 2012. The retired and emigrated dentists wereexcluded from the sample. The overall study sampleconsisted of all licensed dentists and dental specialists inLithuania (n = 2,971). All dentists were contacted up tothree times. Firstly, depending on the available contactinformation (e-mail or address), questionnaires weresent either electronically or by post. Non-responders re-ceived copies of the same questionnaire again after sixweeks. Those who did not respond after the second timewere contacted again by phone six weeks later and thequestionnaire was re-sent via their preferred mode. Intotal, 2,008 questionnaires were returned and the finalresponse rate was 67.6%. The data were collected fromDecember 2012 to June 2013.Reliability of the original study questionnaire was testedby asking 10 randomly chosen dentists to complete thequestionnaire twice with a 2-month gap in between theserecordings in order to avoid memory bias. The question-naire items were structured on nominal, ordinal, andinterval scales. The reliability of questions structured onnominal or ordinal scales was tested employing Cohen’skappa and interval scale responses were checked by intra-class correlation. Overall, the reliability was high for ques-tionnaire items falling within the range 0.7 to 1.0. Thequestionnaire included questions about demographic andemployment-related characteristics such as practice loca-tion, practice type, employment status, number of workplaces, working hours, perception of insufficient numbersof patients, required additional workload, and future car-eer intentions.The SPSS statistical program version 21.0 was employedfor all statistical analyses. Univariate analyses were used todescribe the study sample regarding demographic charac-teristics and some study variables. The bivariate analyseswere done for the following purposes: non-responseanalyses (χ2 test/Fisher test and independent samples t-test), comparisons between general dentists and dentalspecialists regarding demographic characteristics andconcerning different aspects of their employment andfuture professional plans (χ2 test/Fisher test), and to as-sess a number of determinants in relationship to per-ceived low numbers of patients for all dentists anddental specialists (χ2 test/Fisher test). The multivariatelogistic regression model with Enter method was usedto assess the joint effect of determinants related to per-ceived low numbers of patients. The threshold for sig-nificance for all tests was set at P <0.05. Due to somemissing answers for individual questions of the ques-tionnaire, the statistics for each question were based ona varying number of study subjects.ResultsThe analyses showed no significant differences betweenresponders and non-responders regarding the numberof different dental specialists (oral surgeons, periodon-tologists, endodontists, prosthodontists, orthodontists,and pediatric dentists; P = 0.252). However, there weresignificantly fewer younger dentists (P = 0.001), males(P < 0.001), and dentists from big cities (P < 0.001)among the responders compared to the non-responders(results are not presented).Table 1 describes socio-demographic and employment-related characteristics of Lithuanian general dentistsand dental specialists. There were statistically significantdifferences between the two professional groups regardinggender distribution, residence, practice location and type,and working hours (P < 0.05). The group of dental special-ists comprised significantly more males than the group ofgeneral dentists. More specialists, as compared to generaldentists, tended to work in cities and overtime (>40 hoursper week). In both professional groups, the majority ofdentists worked full or part time in private practices andless than 25% of all dentists were employed in publicclinics. The majority of both groups were associateTable 1 Socio-demographic and employment-related characteristics – comparison between general dentists and dentalspecialistsDemographic andemployment-relatedcharacteristicsGeneral dentists Specialists Total P valuesn % n % n %Sex*Males 198 12.0 103 29.9 301 15.1 <0.001Females 1,453 88.0 242 70.1 1,695 84.9Total 1,651 100 345 100 1,996 100Age groups*35 years or less 589 35.7 109 31.6 698 35.0 0.18336–55 years 592 35.9 141 40.9 733 36.756 or more years 470 28.5 95 27.5 565 38.3Total 1,651 100 345 100 1,996 100Residence*Big cities 1,082 65.7 284 82.3 1,366 68.6 <0.001Suburban or rural 565 34.3 61 17.7 626 31.4Total 1,647 100 345 100 1,992 100Practice location*Big cities 907 57.1 243 70.4 1,150 59.5 <0.001Suburban or rural 681 42.9 102 29.6 783 40.5Total 1,588 100 345 100 1,933 100Practice type*Public 373 22.8 54 15.8 427 21.6 <0.001Public and private 326 19.9 122 35.7 448 22.6Private 939 57.3 166 48.5 1,105 55.8Total 1,638 100 342 100 1,980 1002123811Janulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 3 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74Employment status*Associate dentist 1,016 63.3Owns private practice 413 25.7Rents a dental chair 176 11.0Total 1,605 100Working hours (per week)*Part-time (≤30 hours) 470 28.9Full-time (30–40 hours) 725 44.6Overtime (>40 hours) 432 26.6Total 1,627 100 3*χ2 test.11 62.1 1,227 63.1 0.15401 29.7 514 26.48 8.2 204 89.540 100 1,945 1009 26.3 559 28.4 <0.00117 34.5 842 42.833 39.2 565 28.839 100 1,966 100dentists. More than one third of dentists owned a pri-vate practice or rented a dental chair. Both general den-tists and dental specialists practiced in multiple clinics.Specialists practiced in significantly more employmentsites compared to general dentists (2.0 ± 1.2 and 1.4 ±0.6, respectively; P < 0.001).Table 2 compares the two groups of dentists concerningtheir future career intentions. No statistically significantassociations were found. Almost 11% of general dentistsand 8.3% of dental specialists considered emigration as anoption, and a small proportion of dentists contemplatedchanging professions. Relatively high proportions in bothgroups of dentists (>65%) had plans to work after retire-ment age should their health allow it. The retirement agein Lithuania is progressively increasing, and is currentlyset at 61 years for women and 63 years for men [19].Table 3 presents the results of bivariate analyses where anumber of determinants were associated with perceiveddifferences between dentists’ perceived lack of patientsand intended retirement time.Figure 1 shows the distribution of required additionalworkload among dentists and different dental specialists.Endodontists and pediatric dentists required the leastadditional workload. The average dentist, periodontist,orthodontist, prosthodontist, and oral surgeon requiredabout 10% of the additional workload. However, abouthalf of these professionals required more than that.Table 4 presents findings from the logistic regressionanalysis where the dependent outcome was the perceivedlow number of patients and the independent predictorswere practice type, age, gender, practice location, type ofdentist (general dentists or specialists), and intention toemigrate. The two strongest predictors associated withperceived low patient numbers were working in a privatepractice or in public and private practices combined (OR =4.4, P < 0.001) and younger age (≤35 years; OR = 2.0,ntJanulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 4 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74low numbers of patients. Around one third in both groupsof dentists reported a low number of patients. More males(P = 0.001) and younger dentists (P < 0.001) stated insuffi-cient numbers of patients compared to their female andolder professional counterparts. Urban dentists lacked pa-tients slightly more than dentists from suburban or ruralareas (P < 0.001). Dentists working full or part time in pri-vate practices perceived to have insufficient numbers ofpatients more often compared to those who practiced inthe public sector (P < 0.001). Almost 16% of general den-tists and dental specialists who perceived low patientnumbers intended to emigrate and only 8.1% of dentalprofessionals who did not indicate a lack of patientsintended to do so. The difference was statistically signifi-cant (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significantTable 2 Future career intentions of general dentists and deFuture carrier intentions General dentistsn %Intention to emigrate*Yes 175 10.8No 1,450 89.2Total 1,625 100Intention to change profession*Yes 42 21.0No 158 79.0Total 200 100Intention to retire*Earlier than retirement age 93 5.8At retirement age 407 25.3Continue working at retirement age 1,109 68.9Total 1,609 100*χ2 test.P < 0.001). The likelihood of low patient numbers was 1.5times higher for males (P = 0.007) and 1.5 higher for thosewho practice in cities compared to those who practice inrural areas (P = 0.001). The perception of low patient num-bers was 1.7 times more frequent for those who intend toemigrate (P = 0.01).DiscussionThe present study findings indicate that a proportion ofLithuanian dentists and dental specialists face a numberof challenges. About one third of dentists work longhours, perceive an insufficient number of patients, andrequire additional workloads. Further, the majority ofthem practice in multiple locations. A large share ofdentists also considered a continuation of work beyondal specialistsSpecialists Total P valuesn % n %28 8.3 203 10.3 0.202310 91.7 1,760 89.7338 100 1,963 1006 1.8 48 8.9 0.445334 98.2 492 91.1340 100 540 10030 8.9 123 6.3 0.09685 25.2 492 25.3222 65.9 1,331 70.2337 100 1,946 100paJanulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 5 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74Table 3 Determinants related to the perceived shortage ofDemographic, employment-related characteristics, andfuture carrier intentionsLacking patientsn %Dental professionals*General dentists 515 31.3the official retirement age. The challenges in the dentalprofession are also present in other EU countries:Greece has reported an oversupply and unemploymentof dentists [20]. Unemployment of dentists is also anissue in Finland, Germany, and Italy [21].The results show that the perception of having lownumbers of patients was significantly higher among den-tists working in a private practice. These results mightSpecialists 108 31.4Total 623 31.4Gender*Males 120 39.7Females 506 29.8Total 626 31.3Age groups*35 years or less 309 44.136–55 years 202 27.556 or more years 115 20.4Total 626 31.3Practice location*Big cities 402 35.0Suburban or rural 206 26.3Total 608 31.5Practice type*Public 48 11.2Public and private 172 38.2Private 404 36.4Total 624 31.4Intention to emigrate*Yes 97 15.7No 521 84.3Total 618 31.3Intention to change profession*Yes 16 2.6No 605 97.4Total 621 31.4Intention to retire*Earlier than retirement age 41 33.1At a retirement age 156 31.6Continue working at retirement 416 31.1Total 613 31.3*χ2 test.tients (all sample)Not lacking patients Total P valuesn % n %1,128 68.7 1,643 82.7 1.000indicate that there is an uneven distribution of dentistsamong the private and public sector that does not reflectthe demand of patients for the respective services. Ac-cording to Puriene et al. [3], patients in Lithuania, espe-cially those with lower income, prefer services in thepublic sector as the treatment is less expensive. Patientswho demand treatment with modern technologies tendto visit private dental clinics [3]. As dental plans are rare236 68.6 344 17.31,364 68.6 1987 100182 60.3 302 15.1 0.0011,190 70.2 1,696 84.91,372 69.9 1,998 100391 55.9 700 35.0 <0.001533 72.5 735 36.8448 79.6 563 71.81,372 69.9 1,998 100747 65.0 1,149 59.5 <0.001576 73.7 782 40.51,323 68.5 1,931 100381 88.8 429 21.6 <0.001278 61.8 450 22.6705 63.6 1,109 44.21,364 68.6 1,988 100109 8.1 206 10.5 <0.0011,245 91.9 1,766 89.51,354 68.7 1,972 10032 2.4 48 2.4 0.771,325 97.6 1,930 97.61,357 68.6 1,978 10083 66.9 124 6.3 0.894338 68.4 494 25.3922 68.9 1,338 68.41,343 68.7 1,956 100Figure 1 The distribution of required additional workload among dentists and different dental specialists.Janulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 6 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74in Lithuania, only patients willing to pay more can ac-cess treatments at private practices.The figure of the required additional workload amongdental professionals might indicate a surplus of dentistsand dental specialists in Lithuania. In 2013, 46.4% of alldentists were 40 years old or younger, while only about17% of physicians, 24% of obstetricians, and 30% ofnurses were in the same age group in 2010 [8,22]. InAustralia, 37.6% of dentists were 39 years old or youn-ger. In the USA and Germany, 36% and 39% of dentists,respectively, were 44 years old or younger [23-25].According to the study results, emigration intentionsare expressed more often by those dentists who perceivea lack of patients. An increasing lack of patients maytherefore result in an increasing number of dentistsintending to emigrate to countries where there is de-mand for a professional dental workforce with betterworking conditions and career opportunities. On theone hand, this may lessen the competition betweenTable 4 Multivariate analysis of determinants related to the pPredictors BPractice type Private or private & public 1.478Public 0Age group ≤35 years 0.709>35 years 0Gender Males 0.380Females 0Practice location Urban 0.368Suburban and rural 0Type of dentist Specialists 0.126General dentists 0Intention to emigrate Yes 0.551No 0Constant −2.755dentists and improve the problem with insufficient num-bers of patients in areas where the dentist-patient ratiois high. On the other hand, emigration might lead toshortages in areas where the dentist-patient ratio isalready low. Given the high costs of dental education,which are covered by the government, emigration mayalso be considered as a loss to the national economy.However, recent dentists’ intentions to emigrate arelower when compared to other specialties during thetime of Lithuania’s accession to the European Union. In2004, 26.8% of physicians and 26.5% of pharmacists re-ported an intention to emigrate [26,27].A closer look at possible underlying reasons for the per-ceived unequal distribution of patients among dentistspracticing in the public and private sector reveals a lack ofregulation of the dental workforce and its regional distri-bution. A few studies have analyzed the unequal distribu-tion of dentists across Lithuania and emphasized the needfor dental workforce planning [28-30]. However, noerceived lack of patients (logistic regression)Significance Adj. odds ratio 95% CI for OR<0.001 4.4 3.1; 6.21.0<0.001 2.0 1.7; 1.5 1.1; 1.5 1.2; 1.1 0.9; 1.7 1.3; 2.41.0<0.001 0.064Janulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 7 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74appreciable measures have yet been taken by policymakers and health care planners in Lithuania to addressthese shortcomings. In contrast to the dental care system,a similar situation in the general health care system wasencountered actively. This comprised increasing studentenrolments to medical studies to counterbalance the pre-dicted shortage of physicians, addressing mal-distributionof specialized physicians by providing recommendationsto universities, partly outweighing geographical mal-distribution by facilitating agreement between medicalresidents and health care institutions on covering medicalresidency costs as well as full or partial subsidizing costs[31]. As the shortcomings in the dental care system areacute, similar measures are required.ConclusionsWorking conditions of Lithuanian dentists and dental spe-cialists have been examined. Some of the challenges den-tists and dental specialists face in Lithuania include longworking hours, a perceived lack of patients, practicing inmultiple locations, intention to continue working after of-ficial retirement age, and possible intention to emigrate.These indications should be further researched and ana-lyzed to inquire the exact underlying causes, to identifyshortcomings, and to inform and improve workforce plan-ning. Especially the regulation of the number and regionaldistribution of practitioners needs to be addressed by pol-icy makers and health care planners in Lithuania in atimely manner. This will be essential in order to balancedemand for and supply of adequate and affordable dentalcare. The overall goal should be to ensure equitable accessto oral care for all segments of the population in the coun-try while at the same time allowing for economically sus-tainable working conditions for dentists, both in publicservice and private practice.Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Authors’ contributionsVJ designed the questionnaire, carried out the survey, and drafted the initialmanuscript. JA performed the statistical analysis and helped to draft themanuscript. AP conceived the study, participated in its design andcoordination, and in composing the questionnaire. VP participated in thestudy design, helped to compose the questionnaire, and to draft themanuscript. HB helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read andapproved the final manuscript.AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Prof. Jadvyga Petrauskiene for makingsubstantial contributions to the concept and design of the study.Author details1Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Zalgiris st. 115,Vilnius, Lithuania. 2Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, 2199Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, Canada. 3College of Dentistry, New YorkUniversity, 345 E. 24th Street, New York, USA.Received: 13 April 2014 Accepted: 1 December 2014Published: 20 December 2014References1. Puriene A, Petrauskiene J, Balciuniene I, Janulyte V: The assessment ofdentists’ attitude towards dental care system changes after independenceregain in Lithuania. Theory Practice Med 2008, 14(2):152–158.2. World Bank: Lithuania profile. [http://data.worldbank.org/country/lithuania#cp_wdi]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.3. Puriene A, Petrauskiene J, Balciuniene I, Janulyte V, Kutkauskiene J,Musteikyte M: Private or public dental care? Patients’ perception andexperience in Lithuania. Medicina (Kaunas) 2008, 44(10):805–811.4. Lithuania Statistics Department: Total Area and Population by AdministrativeTerritory, Statistical Indicator and Year. [http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3010211&PLanguage=1&TableStyle=&Buttons=&PXSId=3767&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&rvar9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.5. Lithuania Statistics Department: Population as of 1 January by Sex,Administrative Territory, Age (5 year groups) and Year. [http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3010203&PLanguage=1&TableStyle=&Buttons=&PXSId=3766&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&rvar9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.6. Patel R: The State of Oral Health in Europe. Report Commissioned by thePlatform for Better Oral Health in Europe; 2012 [http://www.mah.se/PageFiles/49503/Report%20-%20the%20State%20of%20Oral%20Health%20in%20Europe.pdf]7. König J, Holtfreter B, Kocher T: Periodontal health in Europe: future trendsbased on treatment needs and the provision of periodontal services–position paper 1. Eur J Dent Educ 2010, 14(Suppl 1):4–24.8. Lithuanian Dental Chamber: 10 Years Together; 2014. [http://odontologurumai.lt/files/rumu-knyga-10m/10-metu-kartu-10-years-together-web.pdf]In Lithuanian.9. World Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe: European Health forall Database. [http://data.euro.who.int/hfadb/]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.10. Lithuanian Dental Chamber: The Register of Dentists' and Dental Assistants'Licenses in Lithuania. Vilnius, Lithuania: [www.odontologurumai.lt]11. Allison RA, Manski RJ: The supply of dentists and access to care in ruralKansas. J Rural Health 2007, 23(3):198–206.12. Kruger E, Tennant M: Short-stay rural and remote placements in dentaleducation, an effective model for rural exposure: a review of eight-yearexperience in Western Australia. Aust J Rural Health 2010, 18(4):148–152.13. Lithuanian Dental Chamber: Lithuanian Dental Chamber 2008–2012. Vilnius,Lithuania; 2013 [www.odontologurumai.lt]14. Janulyte V, Puriene A, Peciuliene V: The problem of Lithuanian oral healthprofessionals emigration. Dental and Maxillofacial J 2013, 1(Suppl 1):23–25.15. Janulyte V, Puriene A, Petrauskiene J, Peciuliene V, Benzian H: Internationalmigration of Lithuanian oral health professionals: a survey of graduates.Int Dent J 2011, 61(4):224–230.16. Balasubramanian M, Short SD: Is the concept of ethics misplaced in themigration of Indian trained dentists to Australia? The need for betterinternational co-operation in dentistry. Indian J Dent Res 2011,22(6):866–868.17. Benzian H, Beaglehole R, Crail J, Mackay J: International Migration of Dentists.Where from and where to? Barcelona, Spain: IADR meeting; 2010 May. PosterNo.: 855.18. Balazs P: Dentists' workforce in Hungary and international migration.Fogorv Sz 2012, 105(2):77–85.19. A Spreadsheet of the Retirement Age in Lithuania. [http://www.sodra.lt/index.php?cid=336]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.20. Koletsi-Kounari H, Papaioannou W, Stefaniotis T: Greece’s high dentist topopulation ratio: comparisons, causes, and effects. J Dent Educ 2011,75:1507–1515.21. Kravitz AS, Treasure ET: Manual of Dental Practice. Brussels: Council ofEuropean Dentists; 2008.22. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences: The Pilot “Day Photography”Analysis of the Number, Requirement and Workload of Medical Personnel.Vilnius: Final report of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania;2011.23. Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, The University ofAdelaide, South Australia, Chrisopoulos S, Teusner DN: Dentist labour forceprojections 2005 to 2020: the impact of new regional dental schools.Aust Dent J 2008, 53(3):292–296.24. Valachovic RW: Current Demographics and Future Trends of the DentistWorkforce; 2009. [http://www.google.lt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iom.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FActivity%2520Files%2FWorkforce%2Foralhealthworkforce%2F2009-Feb-09%2F1%2520-%2520Valachovic.ashx&ei=5gqMVJmKFoPuUNa7hCg&usg=AFQjCNHaphrFGWA8Paff46l8OqxzPSUQgg&sig2=pJ7qaFPqrAk2_IxxksBdSw&bvm=bv.81828268,d]25. Achermann G: How Will Dentistry Look in 2020?. ; 2012. Available at:[http://www.straumann.com/content/dam/internet/straumann_com/Resources/investor-relations/publications-and-reports/capital-markets-day-2012/How%20will%20dentistry%20in%202020%20look_Straumann%20CMD2012_Achermann.pdf]. Accessed on June 12, 2014.26. Stankunas M, Lovkyte L, Padaiga Z: The survey of Lithuanian physiciansand medical residents regarding possible migration to the EuropeanUnion. Medicina (Kaunas) 2004, 40:68–74.27. Yamalik N, Ensaldo-Carrasco E, Cavalle E, Kell K: Oral health workforceplanning part 2: figures, determinants and trends in a sample of WorldDental Federation member countries. Int Dent J 2014, 64(3):117–126.28. Petrauskiene J, Bierontas D, Guogiene E: Prognosis of physicians’ numberin Lithuania. Medicina (Kaunas) 1994, 30:608–613.29. Zakaite Z: Requirement and Supply Projections for Dentists. Kaunas MedicalUniversity, Faculty of Public Health, Department of Social Sciences andHumanities; 2006. MSc thesis.30. Starkiene L, Padaiga Z, Reamy J, Dickute J: Experience of Human ResoursesPlanning in Health Care and Pharmacy in Lithuania. Kaunas: Alliance ofLiberals and Democrats for Europe; 2007.31. Starkiene L, Macijauskiene J, Riklikiene O, Stricka M, Padaiga Z: Retainingphysicians in Lithuania: integrating research and health policy.Health Policy 2013, 110(1):39–48.doi:10.1186/1478-4491-12-74Cite this article as: Janulyte et al.: Current employment characteristicsSubmit your next manuscript to BioMed Centraland take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission• Thorough peer review• No space constraints or color figure charges• Immediate publication on acceptance• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar• Research which is freely available for redistributionJanulyte et al. Human Resources for Health 2014, 12:74 Page 8 of 8http://www.human-resources-health.com/content/12/1/74and career intentions of Lithuanian dentists. Human Resources for Health2014 12:74.Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items