SynthesisBMJ open2022
Strengthening the clinical academic pathway: a systematic review of interventions to support clinical academic careers for doctors and dentists.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- The UK kidney association 2025 academic census: a national survey to identify workforce improvements.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring the lived experiences of early- and mid-career female academic GPs in the UK: a biographical narrative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Barriers and enablers to medical students' engagement in research and clinical academic careers: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Barriers, facilitators and solutions to equitable career progression for disabled doctors: an integrative review.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Article
- Students' and educators' perceptions of clinical academic pathways in the UK: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Transitioning between clinical and academic practice from the perspectives of clinical academic trainees, academic training programme directors and academic supervisors: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Is there a sufficient supply of clinical academics for UK medical schools? A retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate existing evidence on interventions intended to increase recruitment, retention and career progression within clinical academic (CA) careers, including a focus on addressing inequalities.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PsycINFO and Education Resource Information Center searched October 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included qualified doctors, dentists and/or those with a supervisory role. Outcomes were defined by studies and related to success rates of joining or continuing within a CA career. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Abstract screening was supported by machine learning software. Full-text screening was performed in duplicate, and study quality was assessed. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data was performed. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.
results148 studies examined interventions; of which 28 were included in the quantitative synthesis, 17 in the qualitative synthesis and 2 in both. Studies lacked methodological rigour and/or were hindered by incomplete reporting. Most were from North America. No study included in the syntheses evaluated interventions aimed at CA dentists.Most quantitative evidence was from multifaceted training programmes. These may increase recruitment, but findings were less clear for retention and other outcomes. Qualitative studies reported benefits of supportive relationships, including peers and senior mentors. Protected time for research helped manage competing demands on CAs. Committed and experienced staff were seen as key facilitators of programme success. Respondents identified several other factors at a programme, organisational or national level which acted as facilitators or barriers to success. Few studies reported on the effects of interventions specific to women or minority groups.
conclusionsExisting research is limited by rigour and reporting. Better evaluation of future interventions, particularly those intended to address inequalities, is required. Within the limits of the evidence, comprehensive multifaceted programmes of training, including protected time, relational and support aspects, appear most successful in promoting CA careers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.
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.