ArticleFuture healthcare journal2020
Measuring the working experience of doctors in training.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of intrawork rest breaks on doctors' performance and well-being: systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Training experience across UK medicine: deanery differences versus site variation-General Medical Council National Training Survey 2025 analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Understanding resilience in medical interns through ecological momentary assessments, predictive modelling, and topic analysis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Temporal structures that determine consistency and quality of care: a case study in hyperacute stroke services.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Combined empowerment, continuous appraisal, psychological and career counseling improve medical cadets' satisfaction and may potentially offset burnout during internship year. An 18-months successful experience in a tertiary medical center.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using an online tool, we report the association between tasks and 'affect' (underlying experience of feeling, emotion or mood) among 565 doctors in training, how positive and negative emotional intensity are associated with time of day, the extent to which positive affect is associated with breaks, and consideration about leaving the profession. Respondents spent approximately 25% of their day on paperwork or clinical work that did not involve patients, resulting in more negative emotions. Positive emotions were expressed for breaks, staff meetings, research, learning and clinical tasks that involved patients. Those having considered leaving the profession report more negative feelings. Systematic workplace changes (regular breaks, reducing paperwork and improved IT systems) could contribute to positive workday experiences and reduce intention to quit. Educators and employers have important roles in recognising, advocating for and implementing improvements at work to enhance wellbeing with potential to improve retention of doctors in training.
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.