Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30837254›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Effect of sex on specialty training application outcomes: a longitudinal administrative data study of UK medical graduates.

Katherine Woolf, Hirosha Jayaweera, Emily Unwin, Karim Keshwani, Christopher Valerio, Henry Potts

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Mapping the roots of specialist disparities.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Katherine WoolfResearch Department of Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4915-0715
Hirosha JayaweeraResearch Department of Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK.
Emily UnwinResearch Department of Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK.
Karim KeshwaniResearch Department of Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK.
Christopher ValerioResearch Department of Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK.
Henry PottsCentre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, UCL, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2017-10-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.

designRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.

settingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.

participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Odds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.

resultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.

conclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.

Indexed as

MedicineAdultFemaleHumansJob ApplicationMalePhysicians, WomenSchools, MedicalSpecializationStudents, MedicalUnited Kingdomacademic attainmentfitness to practisemedical workforceprofessionalismsex differences

Identifiers

PMID30837254
PMCPMC6429837

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.