ArticleBMC medical education2021
Pediatric resident's perception of night float system compared to 24 hours system, a prospective study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of shortening shifts of physicians during their residency on patients and physicians : A systematic review and meta-analysis.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Pooled it
- Building a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aims to evaluate the perceptions of pediatric residents under the night float (NF) on-call system and its impact on well-being, education, and patient safety compared with the traditional 24-h on-call system.
methodsThe study is prospective in nature and conducted on two pediatric resident training centers who apply the NF on-call system as a pilot project. Senior residents (PGY-3 and PGY-4) enrolled in the two training centers were invited to participate before and 6 months after the implementation of the change in the on-call system. A self-administered online questionnaire was distributed. Responses were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The items covered three main domains, namely, residents' well-being, ability to deliver healthcare, and medical education experience. Pre- and post-intervention scores were presented as means and compared by t-test for paired samples.
resultsA total of 42 residents participated in the survey (female = 24; 57.1%). All participants were senior residents; 25 (59.6%) were third-year residents (PGY-3), whereas 17 (40.4%) were fourth-year residents (PGY-4). The participants reported that many aspects of the three domains were improved with the introduction of the NF system. The system was perceived to exert less adverse health effect on the residents (mean: 2.37 ± 1.01) compared with the 24-h on-call system (mean: 4.19 ± 0.60; P < 0.001). In addition, the NF system was perceived to lead to less exposure to personal harm and result in less negative impact on quality of care, better work efficiency, reduced potential for medical errors, more successful teaching, and less disruptions to other rotations compared with the 24 h on-call system (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe perception of senior residents toward the 24-h on-call system pertains to negative impacts on well-being, education, and patient safety compared with on-call systems with restrictive duty hours, such as the NF system, which is perceived to be less harmful, to exert positive impacts on the quality of delivered healthcare services, and more useful from pedagogic aspect.
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.