Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30770777›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor.

E Muddiman, A D Bullock, J M Hampton, L Allery, J MacDonald, K L Webb, L Pugsley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

E MuddimanCardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff, UK. muddimanek@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-6134
A D BullockCardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff, UK.
J M HamptonCardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff, UK.
L AlleryCardiff University School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Cardiff, UK.
J MacDonaldCardiff University School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Cardiff, UK.
K L WebbCardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff, UK.
L PugsleyCardiff University School of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professional boundaries and silos within the medical profession may challenge holistic approaches to patient care.

methodsWe used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate trainees (n = 38) on a range of different specialty programmes in England and Wales could be grouped based on their rankings of 40 statements about 'being a good doctor'. Themes covered in the Q-set include: generalism (breadth) and specialism (depth), interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary team working, patient-centredness, and managing complex care needs.

resultsA by-person factor analysis enabled us to map distinct perspectives within our participant group (P-set). Despite high levels of overall commonality, three groups of trainees emerged, each with a clear perspective on being a good doctor. We describe the first group as 'generalists': team-players with a collegial and patient-centred approach to their role. The second group of 'general specialists' aspired to be specialists but with a generalist and patient-centred approach to care within their specialty area. Both these two groups can be contrasted to those in the third 'specialist' group, who had a more singular focus on how their specialty can help the patient.

conclusionsWhilst distinct, the priorities and values of trainees in this study share some important aspects. The results of our Q-sort analysis suggest that it may be helpful to understand the relationship between generalism and specialism as less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum that transcends primary and secondary care settings. A nuanced understanding of trainee views on being a good doctor, across different specialties, may help us to bridge gaps and foster interdisciplinary working.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceData Interpretation, StatisticalDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEducation, Medical, ContinuingEnglandFactor Analysis, StatisticalHealth Services ResearchHumansLongitudinal StudiesPhysiciansSpecializationWalesComplex careMedical generalismMultidisciplinaryMultimorbidityProfessional identityQ methodology

Identifiers

PMID30770777
PMCPMC6377780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.