Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37056325›Full record

ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2023

Regional survey of foundation trainee doctors' views on a career in gastroenterology: implications for diversity and inclusion.

Umair Akbani, Dipesh Harshvadan Vasant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Umair AkbaniGastroenterology department, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Dipesh Harshvadan VasantGastroenterology department, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2329-0616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to establish the perception of foundation doctors (FDs) towards gastroenterology, focusing on identifying determinants which make the career desirable or undesirable between genders, and to recognise factors to increase diversity in recruitment. Method: An electronic survey was circulated to Northwest of England FDs, categorical variables and data were analysed using χ Results: 133 responses were received (males 55.6%, 37 foundation year 1 (FY1) doctors, 85 FY2 doctors and 11 FY3 doctors). Four (3.0%) FDs were considering a career in gastroenterology. Gastroenterology was perceived positively by 72 (54.1%) of FDs. Significant differences were found between genders in the importance of the following factors influencing specialty selection; patient-centred care (female 52.5% vs male 25.7%, p=0.01), good mentorship (female 67.8% vs male 45.9, p=0.012), income (female 33.9% vs male 59.5%, p=0.003) and length of training (female 27.1% vs male 52.7%, p=0.003). The male predominant existing workforce (female 27.1% vs male 6.8%, p=0.001), and requirement to be a medical registrar (female 74.6% vs male 56.8%, p=0.033) were negatively perceived aspects of gastroenterology among female FDs. Most FDs (female 80.5%, male 70.7%) indicated increased acceptability of less than full time training and greater flexibility may attract more females to gastroenterology. Conclusion: Increased flexibility in training and greater postfoundation exposure and mentorship may improve diversity within the specialty. The role of general medicine poses significant concern for FDs and may need further evaluation.

Indexed as

CLINICAL DECISION MAKINGENDOSCOPYSURGICAL TRAINING

Identifiers

PMID37056325
PMCPMC10086705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.