Methods: A qualitative approach was used to gather data from the two programs and the results were compared. Methods included face to face/telephone interviews (digitally recorded) (2005) and questionnaires (2006) with students and clinical supervisors before and at the end of the program. Follow up postal questionnaires were sent to patients and staff. Questions sought demographic information, responses and opinions to open ended questions and statements using the Likert rating scales strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree.
Results: Compared to the 2005 program recruitment outcome (5 recruits), the 2006 program was unsuccessful in recruiting new graduates to Tasmania. Both programs were seen to be very positive learning experiences by all respondents and patients reported strong social interactive factors associated with the dental visit. Student productivity was similar for both programs, although individual student differences were more evident in 2006. Links with the private sector were strengthened through participation as volunteers on the program, although employment strategies with the public sector had not been progressed.
Conclusion: Student selection is considered an important aspect from both the educational perspective (preparedness for clinical practice and levels of competence) and service perspective (recruitment, flexible working conditions, mentoring). The desirable longer term outcomes, such as recruitment of new graduates to the public sector, program sustainability and improved access to dental care for disadvantaged populations relies on close attention to each component of the program, including recruitment of students, curricula revisions, and resources. Further study is required on workforce educational models that take into account new graduates' readiness and interest in working in the Tasmanian public sector.