Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29500208›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Foundation Year 2 doctors' reasons for leaving UK medicine: an in-depth analysis of decision-making using semistructured interviews.

Samantha E Smith, Victoria R Tallentire, Lindsey M Pope, Anita H Laidlaw, Jill Morrison

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Quality in postgraduate medical education: A contested idea.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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.

Samantha E SmithCentre for Medical Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Victoria R TallentireCentre for Medical Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lindsey M PopeGilmorehill Campus, University of Glasgow Medical School, Glasgow, UK.
Anita H LaidlawPopulation and Behavioural Health Sciences, Medical and Biological Sciences, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1214-4100
Jill MorrisonGeneral Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow Medical School, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts.

settingAll four regions of Scotland.

participantsFoundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors' decisions to leave UK medicine.

resultsSeventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of 'taking a break' recurred through multiple narratives.

conclusionsF2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingJob SatisfactionMotivationPersonnel TurnoverPhysiciansAdultCareer ChoiceContractsFemaleHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalPhysicians, FamilyProfessional RoleQualitative Researchhealth policyhuman resource management

Identifiers

PMID29500208
PMCPMC5855199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.