Observational studyBMJ open2019
Clinical specialty training in UK undergraduate medical schools: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing UK medical students' choice of general practice: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- "Probably one of medicine's best kept secrets": preliminary qualitative insights into motivations and concerns regarding addiction medicine specialisation in Australasia.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: the role of student conferences in advancing sport and exercise medicine in the medical school curricula.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Undergraduate oncology education in Sudanese public medical schools; a national cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Understanding concepts of generalism and specialism amongst medical students at a research-intensive London medical school.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- A UK perspective on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical student career perceptions.Medical education online · 2020Article
- Pilot study: undergraduate sports & exercise medicine conferences: what role do they play?BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2020Article
- Undergraduate exposure to GPs with Extended Roles.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if increased exposure to clinical specialties at medical school is associated with increased interest in pursuing that specialty as a career after foundation training.
designA retrospective observational study.
setting31 UK medical schools were asked how much time students spend in each of the clinical specialties. We excluded two schools that were solely Graduate Entry, and two schools were excluded for insufficient information.
main outcome measuresTime spent on clinical placement from UK undergraduate medical schools, and the training destinations of graduates from each school. A general linear model was used to analyse the relationship between the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school and the percentage of graduates from that medical school entering each of the Core Training (CT1)/Specialty Training (ST1) specialties directly after Foundation Year 2 (FY2).
resultsStudents spend a median of 85 weeks in clinical training. This includes a median of 28 weeks on medical firms, 15 weeks in surgical firms, and 8 weeks in general practice (GP). In general, the number of training posts available in a specialty was proportionate to the number of weeks spent in medical school, with some notable exceptions including GP. Importantly, we found that the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school did not predict the percentage of graduates of that school training in that specialty at CT1/ST1 level (ß coefficient=0.061, p=0.228).
conclusionsThis study found that there was no correlation between the percentage of FY2 doctors appointed directly to a CT1/ST1 specialty and the length of time that they would have spent in those specialties at medical school. This suggests that curriculum adjustments focusing solely on length of time spent in a specialty in medical school would be unlikely to solve recruitment gaps in individual specialties.
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.