Evaluating the Dental Pipeline Program: Recruiting Minorities and Promoting Community-Based Dental Education, 2003-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 25581)
Principal Investigator(s): Andersen, Ronald M., University of California-Los Angels. School of Public Health ; Davidson, Pamela L., University of California-Los Angels. School of Public Health
The Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education (Dental Pipeline) program was a national initiative created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in 2001 to address the critical shortage of oral health care for underserved and disadvantaged populations in the United States. By 2003, RWJF selected 11 dental schools to receive Dental Pipeline funding for 5 years through a competitive application process, and The California Endowment (TCE) joined the program in July 2003, funding 4 additional dental schools in California. The initiative focused on recruitment and retention of underrepresented minority dental students, curriculum revisions to stress community-based dental education (CBDE), and increased extramural clinical rotations for students in the community, with the expectation that these changes in dental education would lead to improved access for underserved populations. The Dental Pipeline program sought not only to increase underrepresented minority recruitment but also to build cultural competence for all dental students so that they are better prepared to treat a diverse group of patients. Based in the Department of Health Services at the UCLA School of Public Health, the National Evaluation Team (NET) was chosen by the foundations to be the national evaluator of the Pipeline program. The NET employed a multidisciplinary team using qualitative and quantitative methods and multiple data sources to conduct a comprehensive 5-year evaluation. This ICPSR study contains data from five of the evaluation's data collection efforts: two faculty surveys, a survey of deans, curriculum checklists, clinical information system, and site-visit interviews.
Conducted at two time points during the Pipeline program implementation, the faculty surveys interviewed faculty members in the Dental Pipeline schools about their perceptions of extramural clinical rotations; competence of senior students; support for and effectiveness of recruitment programs intended to increase the number of underrepresented minority and low-income (URM/LI) dental students; impact of diversity on education experience; barriers to sustainability of the extramural programs, cultural competency dental education curricula, and URM/LI recruitment; and barriers for graduating seniors to practice in settings that provide care to underserved populations.
The survey of deans from Pipeline schools inquired about the importance of public policy issues related to dental education and expanding access to oral health care, level of activity and effectiveness of efforts to influence goals, and factors that facilitate or serve as barriers to influencing policy development.
The purpose of the curriculum checklists was to document the Pipeline schools' efforts to develop/revise their CBDE curricula and to characterize the key parameters of all their CBDE courses.
The clinical information system collected information about the Pipeline schools' predoctoral clinical rotations for each of the five academic years covered by the evaluation: total number of days in core community rotations, number of days in extramural rotations by type of extramural site (e.g., urban/rural, Federally Qualified Health Center, community health center, Veterans Administration hospital/clinic, Indian Health Service, and public/parochial school), and average distance of extramural facilities from school.
Multiple rounds of qualitative site visit interview data were collected from different stakeholder groups at the Pipeline schools: faculty, administrators, community representatives, first year students, and fourth year students. The site visit interviews, which were taped and transcribed, were conducted for several reasons: to describe Pipeline program components including baseline status, program structures, and implementation processes; to validate and clarify information gathered from other data sources; to collect information not available from other data sources; and to identify evidence-based best practices in the schools. Altogether, there are 522 discrete transcripts which ICPSR bundled in a single ZIP archive.
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (Instructions on YouTube.)The data files are restricted from general dissemination for reasons of confidentiality. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete an Agreement for the Use of Confidential Data, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research. Apply for access to these data through the ICPSR restricted data contract portal, which can be accessed via the study home page.
Andersen, Ronald M., and Pamela L. Davidson. Evaluating the Dental Pipeline Program: Recruiting Minorities and Promoting Community-Based Dental Education, 2003-2007 [United States]. ICPSR25581-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2011-09-12. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25581.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25581.v1
This study was funded by:
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (045592, 58942)
- The California Endowment (20031951)
Scope of Study
Geographic Coverage: United States
Date of Collection:
The evaluation was conducted in the 15 Dental Pipeline schools:
Data Types: aggregate data, survey data
Data Collection Notes:
For a more comprehensive description of the methods used to evaluate the Dental Pipeline see: Pamela L. Davidson, Terry T. Nakazono, Abdelmonem Afifi, and John J. Gutierrez. Methods for Evaluating Change in Community-Based Dental Education. Journal of Dental Education. February 1, 2009. Vol. 73, no. 2 (suppl) S37-S51. Note: Identification numbers assigned to the schools in this article are not the same as the numbers assigned to the schools in this data collection.
Additional information about the Dental Pipeline is also provided on the Pipeline's Web site: www.dentalpipeline.org.
The data are provided in various formats: Stata and plain text ASCII for the faculty surveys, deans survey, and curriculum checklists; PDF for the clinical information system and opened-ended responses to questions 9 and 10 in the deans survey; and Word (.doc) and PDF for the site visit interview transcripts.
Faculty surveys: These surveys were administered in 14 Pipeline schools to all dental school faculty with at least a 40 percent appointment, basic science course chairs, and community dentists who supervised one or more students in the past two years. The 2004 survey was conducted in the fall and winter of 2004-2005 with a response rate of 58 percent and the 2006 survey in the fall and winter of 2006-2007 with a response rate of 60 percent. Respondents had the option to complete online or paper versions of the survey.
Deans survey: This survey was completed in 2007 by the deans in ten Pipeline schools, including the five California schools.
Curriculum checklists: Administered in 14 Pipeline schools at the culmination of the project during the final site visits (2006-2007), this survey was emailed to each Curriculum Committee chair and the didactic faculty teaching CBDE courses.
Clinical information system: All of the Pipeline schools transmitted data to the NET using a standard reporting form and format. Data was collected for the academic years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007.
Site visit interviews: NET co-investigators conducted three rounds of interviews at ten Pipeline schools funded by RWJF (round 1 in 2003-2005, round 2 in 2005-2006, and round 3 in 2006-2007) and two rounds of interviews at the four TCE-funded schools (round 1 in 2005-2006 and round 2 in 2006-2007). The interviews generally lasted one hour each.
Temple University did not participate in the faculty surveys, dean surveys, curriculum checklists, or site visit interviews.
Original ICPSR Release: 2011-09-12
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)