{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03338718362950996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01938610662358643, 'mean_word_length': 5.214046822742475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The workforce outcomes of dental graduates from a metropolitan school 'Rural Clinical Placement Program' versus a 'Rural Clinical School'.

INTRODUCTION
This study compares the workplace decisions from University of Sydney (USYD) dental graduates who participated in a 1-month voluntary Rural Clinical Placement Program (RCPP), USYD graduates who did not participate in the RCPP (non-RCPP), and with graduates who qualified from a dental Rural Clinical School (RCS) at Charles Sturt University (CSU).


METHODOLOGY
From mid-2015, USYD students who graduated between 2009 and 2013, and CSU graduates from 2013 to 2014, were requested to complete a telephone interview related to employment choices. For USYD, 135 interviews were completed (63% of contactable graduates) and for CSU, 39 interviews (68%). Mixed methods were applied to analyse the data.


RESULTS
For USYD, 33% of RCPP participants were working rurally compared with 18% of the non-RCPP, whilst 54% of CSU graduates were working rurally. For USYD, the self-reported influence of the RCPP on the graduates' employment decisions was a significant predictor of rural employment. For CSU, country of birth and employment status were weakly associated with rural employment. Across the three cohorts, key employment factors were as follows: job availability, family, personal relationships, good mentorship, clinical training, partner factor and lifestyle. In addition, both the RCPP and CSU graduates showed greater interest and awareness of rural employment than the non-RCPP.


CONCLUSION
The CSU RCS and USYD RCPP are leading to positive rural employment outcomes, and it is clear that the provision of a rural experience is influencing graduates to work rurally. Further investigation of the CSU program is required to fully assess its impact and to provide longitudinal workforce information.