ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Retention of young general practitioners entering the NHS from 1991-1992.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Understanding the impact of professional motivation on the workforce crisis in medicine: a rapid review.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Tracking family medicine graduates. Where do they go, what services do they provide and whom do they see?BMC family practice · 2012Article
- Recruitment of UK-trained doctors into general practice: findings from national cohort studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the UK: what are the problems and solutions?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe supply of general practitioners (GPs) in the National Health Service (NHS) is dynamic and there are fears that there will be an inadequate number of doctors to meet the needs of the NHS. There are particular concerns about changes in the career trajectory of young GPs and what they mean for overall supply.
aimTo identify predictors of retention among young, new entrant GPs entering the NHS between 1 October 1991 and 1 October 1992.
methodTwo-year retention rates of young (35 years of age or less) new entrant GPs have been modelled using a multilevel logit model. Retention is defined as young, new entrant GPs remaining in their initial health authority for two years or more.
resultsTwo hundred and fifty-two (13.0%) members of the study group left general practice within two years of entry (i.e. were not retained). Sex (females had lower retention [95% CI = 0.43-0.75]), practice size (young GPs in larger practices had higher retention [95% CI = 1.10-1.29]), and belonging to a practice in one of 16 Greater London Health Authorities (which had lower retention [95% CI = 0.39-0.82]) were identified as major predictors of retention. Deprivation, measured at the individual GP patient list level, had a very slight association with retention (P = 0.097; 95% CI = 1.00-1.02). Deprivation measured at the health authority level (95% CI = 0.99-1.01) was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of retention (P = 0.83).
conclusionNone of the statistically significant predictors of retention suggest any policy panacea to end this phenomenon. The challenge for policy is to learn to deal with the dynamic nature of the GP workforce with a non-crisis mentality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10736904PMC1313392What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.