ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2022
Time for preference-informed foundation allocation?
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Burnout and staff experiences of health inequalities in children's hospitals: a qualitative analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- "Out of the frying pan and into the fire" - the UKFPO's recent changes are a short-sighted response to a complicated problem.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Evidence-based appraisal of situational judgement tests (revisited).Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
- Is the awarding gap at UK medical schools influenced by ethnicity and medical school attended? A retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Evidence-based appraisal of the role of SJTs in selection.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- The Situational Judgement Test: not the right answer for UK Foundation Programme Allocation.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful completion of year 1 of the UK Foundation Programme is a General Medical Council requirement that newly qualified doctors must achieve in order to gain full registration for licence to practise in the UK. We present compelling evidence that both sections of the UK Foundation Programme allocation process, consisting of the Educational Performance Measure and Situational Judgement Test scores, are not fit for purpose. The ranking process drives competitive behaviours among medical students and undermines NHS teamworking values. Furthermore, data from 2013-2020 show that UK minority ethnic students consistently receive significantly lower SJT scores than White students. The current process in the UK allocates lower ranked students, who often need more academic and social support, to undersubscribed regions. This can lead to vacancies in less popular regions, ultimately worsening health inequality. A preference-informed allocation process will improve trainee access to support and help retain trainees in underserved regions. We aim to summarise the flaws of the current system and report a potential radical solution.
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.