ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2020
Factors affecting recruitment into General Practice: a double binary choice approach.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international, cross-sectional comparative study of general practice curricula in medical school programmes.International journal of medical education · 2026Observational
- Ultrasound education, competencies and expected future use among medical interns in Denmark: a national cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Long-term mentoring relationships in undergraduate longitudinal general practice tracks - a qualitative study on the perspective of students and general practitioners.Medical education online · 2023Article
- Article
- Understanding the impact of professional motivation on the workforce crisis in medicine: a rapid review.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.BMC medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recruitment to General Practice (GP) is currently low in many countries. Here we focus on two binary choices for junior doctors: first, whether to apply to GP; second, whether to accept a GP training place if offered. Previous attitudinal studies have indicated factors claimed to affect recruitment. The current study goes further by quantifying the relative impact of different factors on the propensity of candidates to apply to GP and accept a training place. An online questionnaire was sent to candidates applying to United Kingdom (UK) specialty training in 2015. Descriptive statistics and a path analysis evaluated the importance of various factors on GP applications. Our results were synthesised with an analysis of data from the online applications portal. With 3838 candidates responding to the survey, the path analysis showed that personality and previous GP experiences were strongly associated with the decision to apply. There was some evidence that it was easier to enter GP than other specialties; in terms of deciding whether to accept, the evidence suggests GP was a backup plan for around 9% of candidates who accepted a GP post. Our results indicate that recruitment initiatives should focus on candidates who apply to GP but not as first choice or consider GP but do not apply, particularly by providing substantial experience of GP and accentuating the positives of the specialty such as work-life balance and the intellectual challenge of working with patients in primary care. Acceptance of a GP place may also depend on competition for places in other 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.