Observational studyBMJ open2023
Applications to medical and surgical specialist training in the UK National Health Service, 2021-2022: a cross-sectional observational study to characterise the diversity of successful applicants.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Competition and equity in NHS specialty training, 2021-2024: longitudinal cohort analysis of protected-characteristic outcomes.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges in Surgical Training in the United Kingdom and Potential Solutions: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Exploring the Barriers Faced by Medical Students and the Impact of Their Involvement in a Widening Participation Charity.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Is there a lack of equity, diversity and inclusion in orthopaedic education? - A systematic review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Development of an interview practice course for improving overall confidence in specialty training national selection in vascular and general surgery.Surgery open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare success of applicants to specialty training posts in the UK by gender, ethnicity and disability status.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingNational Health Service, UK.
participantsAll specialty training post applications to Health Education England, UK, during the 2021-2022 recruitment cycle.
interventionNil. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of success at application to specialty training posts by gender, ethnicity, country of qualification (UK vs non-UK) and disability. The influence of ethnicity on success was investigated using a logistic regression model, where country of qualification was included as a covariate.
results12 419/37 971 (32.7%) of applicants to specialty training posts were successful, representing 58 specialties. The difference in percentage of successful females (6480/17 523, 37.0%) and males (5625/19 340, 29.1%) was 7.9% (95% CI 6.93% to 8.86%), in favour of females. Segregation of applications to specialties by gender was observed; surgical specialties had the highest proportion of male applicants, while obstetrics and gynaecology had the highest proportion of female applicants. The proportion of successful recruits to specialties largely reflected the number of applications. 11/15 minority ethnic groups (excluding 'not stated') had significantly lower adjusted ORs for success compared with white-British applicants. 'Mixed white and black African' (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.61, p≤0.001) were the least successful minority group in our study, while non-UK graduates had an adjusted ORs for success of 0.43 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.46, p≤0.001) compared with UK graduates. The difference in percentage of success by disabled applicants (179/464, 38.6%) and non-disabled applicants (11 940/36 418, 32.8%) was 5.79% (95% CI 1.23% to 10.4%), in favour of disabled applicants. No disabled applicants were accepted to 21/58 (36.2%) of specialties.
conclusionsDespite greater success by female applicants overall, there is an attraction issue to specialties by gender. Further, most ethnic minority groups are less successful at application when compared with white-British applicants. This requires continuous monitoring and evaluation of the reasons behind observed differences.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.