ArticleBMC medical education2023
Matching of advanced undergraduate medical students' competence profiles with the required competence profiles of their specialty of choice for postgraduate training.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Factors Motivating Trainees to Pursue a Career in Radiology: An Interview Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Core competencies in pharmaceutical education: a Chinese student perspective.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Inventory of self-assessed competences: a tool for identifying training strengths and weaknesses in medical and multiprofessional residency programmes for primary health care.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Defining competence profiles in obstetrics and gynecology using the modified requirement tracking questionnaire.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Personality and interest in general practice: results from an online survey among medical students.BMC primary care · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMatching between undergraduate students and their chosen specialty has implications for their personal job satisfaction and performance as well as societies' needs regarding health care quality. Knowledge regarding student-specialty fit can help improve students' decisions and detect potential deficiencies in specific competences. In this study, we compare self-assessed competence profiles of medical students close to graduation with the competence profiles of their specialty of choice for postgraduate training.
methodsSelf-assessed competence profiles were collected with the modified requirement-tracking (R-Track) questionnaire from 197 final-year medical students close to graduation in 2022. To determine student-specialty fit, difference scores between students' self-assessed competences and physicians' requirements for specific specialties were calculated across the R-Track's six competence areas "Motivation", "Personality traits", "Social interactive competences", "Mental abilities", "Psychomotor & multitasking abilities", and "Sensory abilities", which were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1: "very low" to 5: "very high"). Mean difference scores across competence areas were calculated and compared between specialties with multivariate analysis of variance. Student-specialty fit was also calculated independent of students' choices.
resultsThe competence area "Motivation" scored highest for both students and physicians across specialties. However, students' scores were lower than physicians' requirements for "Motivation" as well as "Personality traits" across all specialties. Difference scores for "Social interactive competences" were either close to zero or showed higher scores for students. A similar competence pattern for internal medicine, general medicine, paediatrics, and gynaecology was identified with higher than required student scores for "Mental abilities", "Psychomotor & multitasking abilities", and "Sensory abilities". All other specialties showed higher physicians' requirements for at least one of these competence areas. Independent of students' specialty choice, we found the highest difference score in favour of student scores for general medicine (0.31) and the lowest difference score for internal medicine (-0.02).
conclusionsStudents' competence profiles overall show better fit with person-oriented specialties. "Mental abilities", "Psychomotor & multitasking abilities", and "Sensory abilities" show higher requirement scores for more technique-oriented specialties. Students interested in such specialties could focus more on basic skill development in undergraduate training or will develop specific skills during residency.
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.