ArticleAtencion primaria2021
[Elements influencing the election of Family and Community Medicine].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze the perceptions, motives and reasons that influence the election of Family and Community Medicine (FCM) speciality, thus exploring possible proposals for change in the health system model and university training.
designDescriptive-interpretative qualitative research from a socio-constructivist perspective. EMPLACEMENT: Medical speciality training departments in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT: 55 first year junior doctors belonging to the FCM Barcelona Ciutat ICS training department were contacted; 25 agreed to participate. They were segmented into two groups depending on if the choice of FCM had been their first option or not. Through snowball sampling 11 more junior doctors from other specialities were recruited.
methodThree focus groups were formed: (a) first choice FCM, (b) not first choice FCM and (c) other specialities. Semi-structured 2-h long interviews took place with each of the groups. Literal transcription and inductive codification with a first triangulation within each group and a second one between the three of them and thematic content analyses.
resultsThe choice of speciality is lived as an academic milestone and is thought determining professional and personally. It is a complex weave of influencing elements but some of main factors were university training, health system model, professional prospects and the social appreciation of the speciality. Analyzing the relation between these elements puts light on a phenomena we have called "the discredit of Primary Care (PC)".
conclusionThe FCM specialty will not be attractive in a hospital-centric health and training system that does not bet on PC organizationally or economically.
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.