ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2019
Attitudes to out-of-programme experiences, research and academic training of gastroenterology trainees between 2007 and 2016.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensuring the Future Pool of Gastroenterologists in the United Kingdom Is Imperative.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Research engagement by British early-career practitioners in nephrology: a multidisciplinary survey.BMJ open · 2022Article
- What next for gastroenterology and hepatology trainee networks? Lessons from our surgical colleagues.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Women in gastroenterology: the UK trainee experience.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Variation in exposure to endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding during UK gastroenterology training.Frontline gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Young Gi angle: How to set up a successful gastroenterology trainee research network - tips for trainees.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAcademic medical training was overhauled in 2005 after the Walport report and Modernising Medical Careers to create a more attractive and transparent training pathway. In 2007 and 2016, national web-based surveys of gastroenterology trainees were undertaken to determine experiences, perceptions of and perceived barriers to out-of-programme research experience (OOP-R). DESIGN SETTING AND PATIENTS: Prospective, national web-based surveys of UK gastroenterology trainees in 2007 and 2016.
main outcome measureAttitudes to OOP-R of two cohorts of gastroenterology trainees.
resultsResponse rates were lower in 2016 (25.8% vs 56.7%) (p<0.0001), although female trainees' response rates increased (from 28.8% to 37.6%) (p=0.17), along with higher numbers of academic trainees. Over 80% of trainees planned to undertake OOP-R in both surveys, with >50% having already undertaken it. Doctor of Philosophy/medical doctorate remained the most popular OOP-R in both cohorts. Successful fellowship applications increased in 2016, and evidence of gender inequality in 2007 was no longer evident in 2016. In the 2016 cohort, 91.1% (n=144) felt the development of trainee-led research networks was important, with 74.7% (n=118) keen to get involved.
conclusionsThe majority of gastroenterology trainees who responded expressed a desire to undertake OOP-R, and participation rates in OOP-R remain high. Despite smaller absolute numbers responding than in 2007, 2016 trainees achieved higher successful fellowship application rates. Reassuringly more trainees in 2016 felt that OOP-R would be important in the future. Efforts are needed to tackle potential barriers to OOP-R and support trainees to pursue research-active careers.
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.