ArticleBMJ open2022
More than burnout: qualitative study on understanding attrition among senior Obstetrics and Gynaecology UK-based trainees.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- When doctors falter: Resilience in modern obstetrics and gynecology, a narrative review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Exploring how starting work during COVID-19 impacted post-foundation career decisions of new doctors: a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- 'BMJ open · 2024Article
- 'Us versus them': A social identity perspective of internal medicine trainees.Perspectives on medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWorkforce retention among UK-based Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) trainees has been a particular concern for a number of years, with 30% trainees reportedly leaving specialty training. With specialty focused research being limited and tending to analyse the training programme as a whole. The aim of this study was to explain why senior O&G trainees within reach of completing training were leaving the specialty.
designQualitative study based on Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology using semi-structured interviews. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. The key themes were used to build an explanatory model, in the form of a concept map for attrition.
settingLondon.
participantsNine senior O&G trainees (ST5-7) of which six were committed to the specialty, two were not going to pursue a consultancy post once training was complete and one ex-trainee.
resultsFive major themes emerged from the study, of which four; 'Just get on with it', 'Just a number', 'Tick-box exercise' and 'It has not happened to me but…' were described by all participants. However, the final theme, relating to the lack of professional identity, 'I did not see myself as an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist' was only demonstrated among those who had left or were not going to pursue a consultancy post once training was complete. Potential strategies for facilitating professional identity development were focused into three areas; establishing meaningful connections, adequate support mechanisms and regional initiatives.
conclusionPrevious research on attrition in the medical profession have suggested burnout and the lack of resilience as being the key factors for leaving training. However, based on this study's findings, an alternative pathway related to the lack of professional identity has been proposed for senior O&G trainees. ETHICS: This study was registered at King's College London, Kings Reference: LRU-18/19-10632 and was awarded ethical approval through the Research Ethics Committee (REMAs).
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.