Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30297349›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Do changing medical admissions practices in the UK impact on who is admitted? An interrupted time series analysis.

Shona Fielding, Paul Alexander Tiffin, Rachel Greatrix, Amanda J Lee, Fiona Patterson, Sandra Nicholson, Jennifer Cleland

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Unravelling the spine-gut-pain connection: chronic musculoskeletal pain and digestive dysfunction in a large-scale population-based cohort of 110,685 individuals.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Shona FieldingInstitute for Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5363-8188
Paul Alexander TiffinDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Rachel GreatrixUKCAT Consortium, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Amanda J LeeInstitute for Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Fiona PattersonWork Psychology Group, Derby, UK.
Sandra NicholsonCentre for Medical Education, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Queen Mary, University of London, Cambridge, UK.
Jennifer ClelandCentre for Healthcare Research and Innovation, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBDepartment of Medical Sciences · BYMedia Working Group · USQueen Mary University of London · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2015-08-011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedical admissions must balance two potentially competing missions: to select those who will be successful medical students and clinicians and to increase the diversity of the medical school population and workforce. Many countries address this dilemma by reducing the heavy reliance on prior educational attainment, complementing this with other selection tools. However, evidence to what extent this shift in practice has actually widened access is conflicting.

aimTo examine if changes in medical school selection processes significantly impact on the composition of the student population. DESIGN AND

settingObservational study of medical students from 18 UK 5-year medical programmes who took the UK Clinical Aptitude Test from 2007 to 2014; detailed analysis on four schools. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Proportion of admissions to medical school for four target groups (lower socioeconomic classes, non-selective schooling, non-white and male). DATA ANALYSIS: Interrupted time-series framework with segmented regression was used to identify the impact of changes in selection practices in relation to invitation to interview to medical school. Four case study medical schools were used looking at admissions within for the four target groups.

resultsThere were no obvious changes in the overall proportion of admissions from each target group over the 8-year period, averaging at 3.3% lower socioeconomic group, 51.5% non-selective school, 30.5% non-white and 43.8% male. Each case study school changed their selection practice in decision making for invite to interview during 2007-2014. Yet, this within-school variation made little difference locally, and changes in admission practices did not lead to any discernible change in the demography of those accepted into medical school.

conclusionAlthough our case schools changed their selection procedures, these changes did not lead to any observable differences in their student populations. Increasing the diversity of medical students, and hence the medical profession, may require different, perhaps more radical, approaches to selection.

Indexed as

School Admission CriteriaCollege Admission TestFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMalePatient AdmissionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Racial GroupsSchools, MedicalSocioeconomic FactorsUnited Kingdomadmission/selectionminority recruitment

Identifiers

PMID30297349
PMCPMC6194474
OpenAlexW2894013490

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.