Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31320343›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Clinical specialty training in UK undergraduate medical schools: a retrospective observational study.

Hrisheekesh J Vaidya, Alexander W Emery, Emma C Alexander, Angus J McDonnell, Charlotte Burford, Max K Bulsara

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Undergraduate exposure to GPs with Extended Roles.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    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.

Hrisheekesh J VaidyaFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0885-9859
Alexander W EmeryMedical Education, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-7763
Emma C AlexanderFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7063-6846
Angus J McDonnellFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Charlotte BurfordFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4554-8761
Max K BulsaraBiostatistics, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Career ChoiceSchools, MedicalSpecializationAttitude of Health PersonnelCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomYoung Adultmedical education

Identifiers

PMID31320343
PMCPMC6661606

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.