ArticleBJGP open2024
The under-representation of racially minoritised doctors in academic general practice training: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace Accommodations and Attrition Among Physicians With Disabilities.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Hearing the Silence and Silenced: Co-Producing Research on Infant-Feeding Experiences and Practices With Black Women With HIV.Sociology of health & illness · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practice has one of the most diverse medical training programmes in terms of sex and ethnic background. However, this diversity of race and ethnicity is not reflected in academic GP careers, with just 17% (
aimTo determine whether GP academic clinical fellow (ACF) trainees from racially minoritised backgrounds are proportionally represented, compared with the non-academic training programme, using the annual GP ACF conference as a proxy. DESIGN &
settingA retrospective analysis of conference programmes from national academic GP training conferences from 2018-2023 and demographic data obtained from Health Education England (HEE).
methodUsing conference programmes and online searches, demographic information on conference speakers was obtained and a freedom of information request was made to HEE for the demographics of GP ACFs for corresponding years. This was compared with demographic data of GP trainees and academics.
resultsOn average, there were 40 speakers each year at the conference. White females (average 20.2 speakers each year) were the most well represented group, followed by White males (average 12.5), Asian females (average 3.3), Asian males (average 1.8), Black males (average 0.7), and Black females (average 0.3). HEE data from 2022 revealed that 27 (71.1%) of the 38 (excluding five who did not state their ethnicity) ACFs were White British.
conclusionGP academia should be more representative of the non-academic GP training scheme. Work needs to be done to understand and overcome the structural barriers to recruiting from racially minoritised groups.
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.