ArticleBMJ open2018
'
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond mere respect: new perspectives on dignity for healthcare workplace learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Transitioning from university to postgraduate medical training: A narrative review of work readiness of medical graduates.Health science reports · 2021Review
- New graduate doctors' preparedness for practice: a multistakeholder, multicentre narrative study.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFor many years, the voice of patients has been understood as a critical element for the improvement of care quality in healthcare settings. How well medical graduates are prepared for clinical practice is an important question, but one that has rarely been considered from patient and public perspectives. We aimed to fill this gap by exploring patients and carers' experiences and expectations of junior doctors.
designThis comprises part of a wider study on UK medical graduates' preparedness for practice. A qualitative narrative methodology was used, comprising four individual and six group interviews.
participants25 patients and carers from three UK countries. ANALYSIS: Data were transcribed, anonymised and analysed using framework analysis. MAIN
resultsWe identified three themes pertinent to answering our research question: (1) sources of knowledge (sources of information contributing to patients and carers' perceptions of junior doctors' impacting on expectations); (2) desires for student/trainee learning (experiences and expectations of medical training); and (3) future doctors (experiences and expectations of junior doctors). We also highlight metaphorical talk and humour, where relevant, in the quotes presented to give deeper insights into participants' perspectives of the issues. Participants focused on personal and interpersonal aspects of being a doctor, such as respect and communication. There was a strong assertion that medical graduates needed to gain direct experience with a diverse range of patients to encourage individualised care. Participants narrated their experiences of having symptoms ignored and attributed to an existing diagnosis ('diagnostic overshadowing') and problems relating to confidentiality.
conclusionsOur findings support the view that patients and carers have clear expectations about junior doctors, and that patient views are important for preparing junior doctors for practice. There is a necessity for greater dialogue between patients, doctors and educators to clarify expectations and confidentiality issues around patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.