ArticleInfection2023
The state of infectious disease training in Germany before introduction of the new board certification in internal medicine and infectious diseases: past experience and future expectations.
Article in Infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecently, the German Medical Association introduced a new board certification in Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases (ID). Accompanying, current experience with ID training and expectations for the new curriculum were assessed.
methodsAfter the development of a digital survey covering four main areas with 59 questions, it was distributed via the German Society for Infectious Diseases (DGI) and other networks following a snowball principle. Participation was carried out digitally in a web-based application.
resultsBetween December 2021 and February 2022, 300 datasets were included. 38.9% (114/293) of respondents had completed the additional training in ID. Of those, 54.0% (61/113) were concerned about recognition of previous training certification in the future after the establishment of the new sub-specialization. Overall, 78.5% (135/172) of respondents were satisfied or rather satisfied with the qualification gained through their training, but 8.7% (15/172) felt poorly prepared by their ID training. With regard to the inclusion of microbiology or antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) training into the new ID training curriculum, 84.6% (254/300) and 87.7% (263/300) of participants, respectively, desired an integration. Only 30.8% (53/172) felt sufficiently supported by their employer regarding childcare and 51.7% (89/172) reported missing support for scientific commitment.
conclusionOverall, ID training in Germany seems satisfactory so far, but there is uncertainty about future recognition. Participants find that AMS and microbiology training should be integrated into new ID training curricula. New concepts regarding the compatibility of childcare and career as well as the support of scientific commitment seem essential to attract young professionals to the field.
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.