Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36691216›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Strengthening the clinical academic pathway: a systematic review of interventions to support clinical academic careers for doctors and dentists.

Gary Raine, Connor Evans, Eleonora Petronella Uphoff, Jennifer Valeska Elli Brown, Paul E S Crampton, Amelia Kehoe, Lesley Ann Stewart, Gabrielle Maria Finn, Jessica Elizabeth Morgan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Gary RaineCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Connor EvansCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4525-2100
Eleonora Petronella UphoffCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Jennifer Valeska Elli BrownCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Paul E S CramptonHealth Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8744-930X
Amelia KehoeHealth Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, York, UK.
Lesley Ann StewartCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Gabrielle Maria FinnSchool of Medical Sciences, Manchester University, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0419-694X
Jessica Elizabeth MorganCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK jess.morgan@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8087-8638

Funding

Cancer Research UK C71037/A29824Department of HealthMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

DentistsFemaleHumansNorth AmericaEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING

Identifiers

PMID36691216
PMCPMC9462120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.