ReviewBMC medical education2022
House officers' specialist career choices and motivators for their choice- a sequential mixed-methods study from Malaysia.
Review in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rural physician deployment programs in five Southeast Asian countries: a policy and narrative review.BMC health services research · 2026Review
- Internship Learning Experiences, Challenges, and Resource Preferences Among Junior Doctors in Two Malaysian Tertiary Hospitals: A Pilot Study on the Preliminary Validation of a Multifaceted Questionnaire.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- What drives Malaysian medical students' specialty choices? Findings from the MMSCI study.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- Factors affecting the specialty choice among medical students of Saudi Arabia; an exploratory study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Malaysian Medical Students' Career Intention (MMSCI): a cross-sectional study.Human resources for health · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of mega-city construction engineering on urban livability: an explorative study of Yan'an.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeShortage and maldistribution of medical specialists hamper healthcare quality. The specialist career choices of house officers determines the future composition of healthcare systems. We studied house officers'' specialist career choices and motivators for their choice. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsWe conducted online in-depth interviews among seven house officers using an interview guide developed based on a literature review. The transcripts were analyzed. Major themes were identified. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, and the main and sub-themes were identified as motivators for specialist career choice. An online survey was done among 185 house officers. Content validation of motivators for specialist choice was done using exploratory factor analysis. First, second and third choices for a specialist career were identified. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done to determine the socio-demographic factors and motivators associated with the first choice.
resultsHOs perceived that specialist training opportunities provide a wide range of clinical competencies through well-structured, comprehensive training programs under existing specialist training pathways. Main challenges were limited local specialist training opportunities and hurdles for 'on-contract' HO to pursue specialist training. Motivators for first-choice specialty were related to 'work schedule', 'patient care characteristics', 'specialty characteristics', 'personal factors', 'past work experience', 'training factors', and 'career prospects.' House officers' first choices were specialties related to medicine (40.5%), surgery (31.5%), primary care (14.6%), and acute care (13.5%). On multivariate analysis, "younger age", "health professional in the family", "work schedule and personal factors", "career prospects" and "specialty characteristics" were associated with the first choice.
conclusionsMedical and surgical disciplines were the most preferred disciplines and their motivators varied by individual discipline. Overall work experiences and career prospects were the most important motivators for the first-choice specialty. The information about motivational factors is helpful to develop policies to encourage more doctors to choose specialties with a shortage of doctors and to provide career specialty guidance.
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.