Challenges of Future Patient Recruitment: A Cross-Sectional Study in Conservative Dentistry Teaching

TL;DR

This study explores patient experiences and preferences in dental education to improve patient recruitment for student training.

Contribution

The study provides actionable recommendations for improving patient recruitment in dental education based on patient feedback and data.

Findings

Most patients were satisfied with student treatment and traveled significant distances for appointments.

The primary reason for patient attendance was satisfaction with previous treatments.

Improving accessibility and reducing costs are key to maintaining patient recruitment.

Abstract

Background: Direct clinical training on real patients is essential in dental education. However, the declining patient inflow increasingly challenges this objective. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess patients’ experiences and preferences to derive recommendations for improving patient recruitment. Material and Methods: Over a period of one year, patients treated by students in the courses and final examinations at the dental school of conservative dentistry were questioned using a specially designed questionnaire and reviewed using their medical records. They were asked about their complete treatment process, and patient files were used to record socio-demographic as well as economic and appointment-specific data. Results: We analysed 297 patients (142 women, 47.8%; 155 men, 52.2%) treated by undergraduates across two semesters (four courses) and two final examinations. Median age was 57.0 years (IQR 46–67; mean 55.2, SD 15.2; range 14–85) with no sex-based difference (p > 0.05). Arrival was predominantly by car (72.7%, n = 216); median one-way distance was 20.5 km (IQR 11.2–32.1); and 58.4% were employed, while 41.6% were not employed (33.7% retired, 7.9% unemployed). The leading reason for course attendance was “satisfaction with previous treatments” (65.32%). Information sources were reported by 290/297 (98%); the most common was already being a course patient (143, 48.1%). Most patients attended one appointment (109, 36.7%). Median travel cost per appointment (including parking) was €17.0 (typically €10.0–€23.5). Of 285 respondents, 93.68% answered “Yes” to satisfaction with student treatment. Conclusions: Important steps include enhancing parking facilities, optimizing recall systems and appointment accessibility, and strengthening relationships with regular patients to encourage word-of-mouth referrals. The main focus is to maintain high clinical quality, ensure affordability, and further reduce patient copayments where possible.

Figures