ArticleJMIR medical education2021
Removing Educational Achievement Points From the Foundation Programme Application System: Is This the Right Decision?
Article in JMIR medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and enablers to medical students' engagement in research and clinical academic careers: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Understanding medical students' intercalation decisions to preserve the clinical academic pipeline: a mixed-method survey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comment on "Pressure to Publish: a Student's Perspective on the Role of Research in Residency Applications".Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2023Article
- Impact of the increase in tuition fees and demographic factors on medical student intercalation rates between 2006 and 2020.Future healthcare journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The UK Foundation Programme Office has announced that medical students graduating from 2023 onward will not receive Foundation Programme Application System points for additional degrees or journal publications. In this viewpoint paper, we acknowledge the reasons for this decision, such as socioeconomically advantaged students having greater access to these achievements and the promotion of intercalated degrees for the sake of point accumulation. Additionally, the predictive value of these achievements with regard to junior doctors' performance has been questioned when compared to that of other Foundation Programme Application System components. Conversely, we also highlight the drawbacks of the UK Foundation Programme Office's decision, since this might discourage medical students from completing additional degrees and attempting to publish their work, thereby resulting in clinicians with little to no academic experience or interest. Finally, we attempt to provide suggestions for future improvements in this system by analyzing different medical schools' approaches, such as the BMedSci Honors program offered at Nottingham University. Furthermore, promoting and supporting engagement with academia, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged students, are the responsibility of all medical schools; such actions are needed in order to produce doctors who are both clinically and academically competent. We conclude that the aforementioned changes should only affect new cohorts in the interest of universities' transparency and fairness to their students.
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.