Scoping review highlights variations in training and scope of practice for oral health practitioners in Australia, indicating potential gaps in care.
Objective: To describe the existing evidence regarding the training, scope of practice (SOP) and distribution of oral health practitioners (OHPs) in Australia. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using a reflexive thematic analysis to capture the education and training, workforce characteristics and SOP of Australian OHPs. The literature on the OHP workforce published in peer-reviewed journals as well as in grey literature was included in the scoping review from a range of databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, ABI/INFORM, Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO), Informit, Libraries Australia. Included papers were those published in English only that detailed descriptors of clinical skill sets; practitioner education and training; and practitioner characteristics such as gender, age, practice location, workplace type (e.g., public, private, academia), full-time equivalency, remuneration, and workforce retention. Excluded were studies not published in English, focusing on practitioners outside Australia, non-key outcomes, and publications prior to 1 st July 2010 or after 30 th June 2024. Results: The training of OHPs in Australia has changed for each of the divisions moving from 2-year diplomas to 3-year bachelors degrees. The OHP workforce was found to possess a range of variation in age, gender, and principal practice settings across the divisions. SOP was not consistently described or measured in the literature for OHPs. Conclusions: The training pathways and SOP for OHPs in Australia have evolved over time, reflecting changes in educational standards and workforce needs. Geographic and regulatory factors were identified to influence SOP for OHPs. However, there is a lack of consistent measurement and description of SOP in the literature, highlighting the need for further research. Future studies should focus on the service provision and employment characteristics of DHs, DTs, and OHTs to identify potential gaps in care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carlson‐Jones et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: