ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2019
The value of European immigration for high-level UK research and clinical care: cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers and barriers of international migration of doctors to and from the United Kingdom: a scoping review.Human resources for health · 2023Article
- Article
- Diversity is important.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
- An era of caution and careful planning.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe UK's impending departure ('Brexit') from the European Union may lead to restrictions on the immigration of scientists and medical personnel to the UK. We examined how many senior scientists and clinicians were from other countries, particularly from Europe, in two time periods.
designCross-sectional study.
settingUnited Kingdom.
participantsIndividuals who had been elected as Fellows of the Royal Society or of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and UK medical doctors currently practising and listed in the Medical Register for 2015.
main outcome measuresPercentages of Fellows of the Royal Society, Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences and UK medical doctors by nationality (UK and Irish: UKI, European: EUR and rest of world: RoW) over time. Fellows of the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences proportions were assessed for two time periods, and doctors over decades of qualification (<1960s to 2010s).
resultsPercentages of European Fellows of the Royal Society increased from 0.8% (1952-1992) (the year the UK signed the Maastricht treaty) to 4.3% (1993-2015). For Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences, percentages increased from 2.6% (pre-1992) to 8.9% (post-1992) (for both, p < 0.001). In the 1970s, only 6% of doctors were trained in the EU; the proportion increased to 11% in the last two decades (also p < 0.001). Europeans replaced South Asians as the main immigrant group. Among these, doctors from the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland and Romania made the largest contribution.
conclusionsAny post-Brexit restriction on the ability of the UK to attract European researchers and medical doctors may have serious implications for the UK's science leadership globally and healthcare provision locally.
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.