ArticleBMJ open2022
Influences and outcomes of less than full-time working in the medical profession: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn impoverished medical workforce is a global phenomenon, which can impact patient care significantly. Greater flexibility in working patterns is one approach policy-makers adopt to address this issue, and the expansion of less than full-time (LTFT) working forms part of this. Studies suggest that LTFT working has the potential to improve recruitment and retention by aligning with how doctors increasingly want to balance their careers with other commitments and interests. What is less well understood are the influencing factors and outcomes related to LTFT working among doctors. This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic review that will evaluate existing knowledge on LTFT working in the medical profession. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines will be followed. Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Healthcare Administration, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts will be searched for studies published up to March 2022. Unpublished literature from EThos and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global will also be searched. Bibliographic searching, citation searching and handsearching will be used to retrieve additional papers. Authors will be contacted for data or publications if necessary. Two independent reviewers will undertake study screening, data extraction and quality assessment, with disagreements resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer if necessary. Data synthesis will be by narrative synthesis and meta-analysis if possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed study does not require ethical approval; however, it forms part of a larger body of research on the impact of LTFT working on the medical workforce for which ethics approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee at University College London. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022307174.
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.