Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162643›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Protective factors and sources of support in the workplace as experienced by UK foundation and junior doctors: a qualitative study.

Ruth Riley, Farina Kokab, Marta Buszewicz, Anya Gopfert, Maria Van Hove, Anna K Taylor, Kevin Teoh, James Martin, Louis Appleby, Carolyn Chew-Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Preparing House Officers for Emergencies in a Psychiatric Setting with Simulation-Based Learning.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Ruth RileyCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK r.riley@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8774-5344
Farina KokabSchool of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Marta BuszewiczResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Anya GopfertOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.
Maria Van HoveLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anna K TaylorFaculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK.
Kevin TeohDepartment of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6490-8208
James MartinInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louis ApplebyDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Carolyn Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis paper reports findings identifying foundation and junior doctors' experiences of occupational and psychological protective factors in the workplace and sources of effective support.

designInterpretative, inductive, qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 21 junior doctor participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method.

settingNational Health Service in the UK.

participantsParticipants were recruited from junior doctors through social media (eg, the British Medical Association (BMA) junior doctors' Facebook group, Twitter and the mental health research charity websites). A purposive sample of 16 females and 5 males, ethnically diverse, from a range of specialities, across the UK. Junior doctor participants self-identified as having stress, distress, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts or having attempted to kill themselves.

resultsAnalysis identified three main themes, with corresponding subthemes relating to protective work factors and facilitators of support: (1) support from work colleagues - help with managing workloads and emotional support; (2) supportive leadership strategies, including feeling valued and accepted, trust and communication, supportive learning environments, challenging stigma and normalising vulnerability; and (3) access to professional support - counselling, cognitive-behavioural therapy and medication through general practitioners, specialist support services for doctors and private therapy.

conclusionsFindings show that supportive leadership, effective management practices, peer support and access to appropriate professional support can help mitigate the negative impact of working conditions and cultures experienced by junior doctors. Feeling connected, supported and valued by colleagues and consultants acts as an important buffer against emotional distress despite working under challenging working conditions.

Indexed as

State MedicineWorkplaceAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalProtective FactorsQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdommedical education & trainingmental healthoccupational & industrial medicinequalitative researchsuicide & self-harm

Identifiers

PMID34162643
PMCPMC8231035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.