A Cross-Sectional Study of Postgraduate Orthodontic Students’ Moral Reasoning Ability and Opinions on Professionalism and Dental Board of Australia Tribunal Outcomes

Background/Objectives: The aim of this investigation was to determine postgraduate orthodontic students’ moral reasoning ability and evaluate their opinions on professionalism and the Dental Board of Australia’s (DBA) tribunal outcomes. Methods: Students undergoing postgraduate orthodontic specialist training in five Australian universities were invited to participate in a three-part electronic questionnaire survey. Part 1 related to participant demographic details. Part 2 invited responses to a series of statements related to professionalism and 10 DBA tribunal outcomes, and Part 3 was a validated moral reasoning assessment instrument [Defining Issues Test (DIT-2)]. Results: A response rate of 80.4% (n = 37) was recorded. The mean DIT-2 Post-conventional Schema (P) score was 31.14 (SD = 13.25). All respondents (n = 37; 100%) were aware of the DBA’s Code of Conduct (Code). Respondents were broadly supportive of the statements related to professionalism although 15.4% reported that being bound by the Code meant they could not fully value the student experience whilst at university. Most respondents considered that most DBA tribunal outcomes were fair or tended towards being lenient. However, one outcome regarding dishonest evidence by a dentist in court related to an employment dispute was considered harsh or very harsh by 53% (n = 20). There was little correlation between P scores and responses to most professionalism statements/DBA outcomes. Conclusions: The moral reasoning scores were lower than what might be expected from individuals in the provision of healthcare. The introduction of formal training in moral reasoning may develop postgraduate moral reasoning skills and DIT-2 scores.