ArticleBMJ open2018
How does the outcome of research training fellowships funded via the NHS compare with that from competitively funded fellowships from the MRC and other charities: a cross-sectional retrospective survey of trainees undertaking research training in the West Midlands.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the impact of research training funded via the National Health Service (NHS) on medical trainees compared with traditional clinical research training fellowships (CRTFs). DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsOnline survey of 221 clinical trainees who had completed a period of research during their clinical training between 2009 and 2015 in the West Midlands.
main outcome measuresResearch outcomes.
resultsOverall response rate was 59%, of whom 72 participants were funded by CRTFs and 51 funded by the NHS. Although participants with CRTFs were more likely to be awarded a higher degree compared with those on NHS-administered funding (66/72 CRTFs and 37/51 NHS, P=0.005), similar proportions of NHS-funded and CRTF-funded participants entered clinical lecturer posts on completing initial research training (8/51 NHS and 16/72 CRTF, P=0.37). 77% of participants had three or more publications (CRTF 57 and NHS 39, P=0.72). 57 participants had completed clinical training; similar proportions of CRTF-funded and NHS-funded trainees had research included in their consultant contract (12/22 NHS and 14/26 CRTF, P=0.96) or were appointed to academic posts (3 of 25 NHS funded and 6 of 32 CRTF, P>0.05). 95% of participants would recommend to colleagues and 82% of participants felt the research experience improved their provision of clinical care with no difference between CRTF-funded and NHS-funded participants (P=0.49). Continuing to participate in clinical work during the research reduced reports of trainee difficulty on returning to clinical work (23/108 continued clinical work vs 12/22 no clinical work, P=0.001).
conclusionResearch training funded by the NHS provides a quality experience and contributes to the clinical academic capacity within the UK. More needs to be done to support NHS participants to successfully achieve a higher degree.
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.