Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26208007›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Medical Specialty Choice and Related Factors of Brazilian Medical Students and Recent Doctors.

Ligia Correia Lima de Souza, Vitor R R Mendonça, Gabriela B C Garcia, Ediele C Brandão, Manoel Barral-Netto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ligia Correia Lima de SouzaCentro de Pesquisas Gonçalo Moniz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Salvador, Brazil; Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Vitor R R MendonçaCentro de Pesquisas Gonçalo Moniz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Salvador, Brazil; Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Gabriela B C GarciaCentro de Pesquisas Gonçalo Moniz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Salvador, Brazil; Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Ediele C BrandãoFundação Técnico Educacional Souza Marques, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Manoel Barral-NettoCentro de Pesquisas Gonçalo Moniz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Salvador, Brazil; Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil; Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Investigação em Imunologia (iii-INCT), São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChoosing a medical specialty is an important, complex, and not fully understood process. The present study investigated the factors that are related to choosing and rejecting medical specialties in a group of students and recent medical doctors. METHODOLOGY AND

findingsA cross-sectional survey of 1,223 medical students and doctors was performed in Brazil in 2012. A standardized literature-based questionnaire was applied that gathered preferable or rejected specialties, and asked questions about extracurricular experiences and the influence of 14 factors on a Likert-type scale from 0 to 4. Specialties were grouped according to lifestyle categories: controllable and uncontrollable, which were subdivided into primary care, internal medicine, and surgical specialties. Notably, the time period of rejection was usually earlier than the time period of intended choice (p < 0.0001, χ(2) = 107.2). The choice mainly occurred during the internship period in medical school (n = 466; 38.7%). An overall large frequency of participation in extracurricular activities was observed (n = 1,184; 95.8%), which were highly associated with the respective medical area. Orthopedic surgery had the highest correlation with participation in specialty-specific organized groups (OR = 59.9, 95% CI = 21.6-166.3) and psychiatry was correlated with participation in research groups (OR = 18.0, 95% CI = 9.0-36.2). With regard to influential factors in controllable lifestyle specialties, "financial reason" (mean score ± standard deviation: 2.8 ± 1.0; median = 3) and "personal time" (3.1 ± 1.3; median = 4) were important factors. In primary care, these factors were less important (1.7 ± 1.3 and 1.7 ± 1.5, respectively; median = 2 for both), and higher scores were observed for "curricular internship" (3.2 ± 1.1, median = 4) and "social commitment" (2.6 ± 1.3, median = 3).

conclusionThe present findings provide important insights into developing strategies to stimulate interest in specialties based on the needs of the Brazilian healthcare system.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceMedicineAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIncomeLife StyleMaleParentsPhysiciansPoliticsQuality of LifeStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID26208007
PMCPMC4514603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.