Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33855193›Full record

ReviewHealth science reports2021

Transitioning from university to postgraduate medical training: A narrative review of work readiness of medical graduates.

James Padley, Sarah Boyd, Alison Jones, Lucie Walters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. The Future of Rural Medical Education in Australia.The Australian journal of rural health · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

James PadleyDiscipline of Rural and Remote Health, College of Medicine & Public Health Flinders University Bedford Park South Australia Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0386-7462
Sarah BoydDiscipline of Rural and Remote Health, College of Medicine & Public Health Flinders University Bedford Park South Australia Australia.
Alison JonesCollege of Medicine & Public Health Flinders University Bedford Park South Australia Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6059-3413
Lucie WaltersDiscipline of Rural and Remote Health, College of Medicine & Public Health Flinders University Bedford Park South Australia Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1322-1895

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextWork readiness is often described in terms of the clinical competence medical graduates bring to day 1 of internship. Despite being increasingly viewed as a key graduate outcome, work readiness has remained poorly defined.

objectiveThis narrative review draws on the international literature to explore how different research methods provide differing insight into what constitutes work readiness of medical graduates. From this, we explored contributory factors and developed a conceptual framework to better understand work readiness.

methodsDatabases were searched using the terms including "ready," "readiness," "preparedness," "medical graduates," "intern," and "junior doctor." Information was summarized using a textual description template that included information on study setting, participants, methodologies, limitations, and key result areas (including measures/themes and study conclusions). Consensus discussions between authors led to the naming and understanding of the key themes.

resultsSeventy studies were included in the review. Study participants included final-year medical students (n = 20), junior doctors early in internship (n = 24), and junior doctors late in internship or postgraduate year 2 and above (n = 23). Most studies explored work readiness through the retrospective self-report of the students and/or junior doctor participants. Quantitative research methods elaborated on key skills-based competencies, whereas qualitative research methods provided insight into key contextual and individual characteristics that contributed to preparedness.

conclusionsDifferent research methods provided insight into competencies, as well as individual and contextual aspects, associated with preparedness for practice. The transition from university to clinical practice is significant and requires personal capability and confidence, as well as a supportive training context. Enabling students to engage authentically in clinical environments enhanced preparedness by promoting understanding of role and responsibility. Individual resilience is important, but contextual factors, including provision of adequate support and feedback, can enhance or subtract from feeling prepared. We propose a novel conceptual framework for better understanding work readiness.

Indexed as

educationgraduateinternreadiness

Identifiers

PMID33855193
PMCPMC8025846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.