ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2020
Research and teaching activity in UK occupational physicians.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A thematic content analysis of the structure and effects of good doctor abilities in China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Working Conditions of Occupational Physicians-A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Corporate career support for full-time occupational physicians.Environmental and occupational health practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor all doctors, including occupational physicians (OPs), research and teaching are considered core requirements of medical education and continuing professional development. Academic skills are also vital to evidence-based practice and advancement of occupational health (OH) as a specialty. In recent years, attention has focussed on the declining UK OH academic base and the research- practice gap, and increased practitioner participation in research is encouraged.
aimsTo establish a baseline of research and teaching activity among UK OPs, identify related barriers and inform strategies to overcome them.
methodsAn online survey including specific career profile questions derived from consensus following expert panel discussions. It formed part of a larger Delphi study on UK OH research priorities.
resultsWe received 213 responses, about 18% of 1207 practising UK OPs. Of these, 162 (76%) undertook research at some career-point, of which 44 (27%) were currently research-active. Similarly, 154 (72%) undertook teaching at some career-point, of which 99 (64%) were currently teaching-active. Of those who had never undertaken research (n = 51) or teaching (n = 59), 40 and 42% were interested in doing so, respectively. Key barriers were lack of time and opportunity, the former particularly for respondents practising in industry, where 'commercial' demands take priority, rather than healthcare.
conclusionsThis study establishes a benchmark of academic activity among UK OPs and identifies related barriers. These 'target' barriers can shape research funding priorities and education to increase participation and develop the UK OH academic base.
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.