Three years versus four years Saudi Board Family Medicine program: Graduates' academic performance, perceptions, burnout, and satisfaction with professional life.

Background: The specialty of family medicine, established in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, has rapidly progressed in healthcare settings and is increasingly utilized by the population as well as recent MBBS graduates. Universally, there is ambiguity in the duration, curriculum, and assessment methods used in family medicine specialization programs. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 183 fresh graduates from a 3-year and 4-year residency program. Data were collected using electronic forms, which were subsequently transferred to Microsoft Excel. Following appropriate coding, the data were transferred to SPSS for analysis. The dataset was then cleaned, and statistical tests, such as Chi-square and independent t-tests, were used to draw inferences. Results: Males (50.3%) and females (49.7%) had almost equal distribution in the study. Overall, 67.6% of respondents had passed the final exam; the pass percentage was 69.3% for the 3-year residency program and 66.4% for the 4-year program. The overall mean score for perceived achievement of SaudiMED-FM 2020 competencies was 23.06 ± 5.52 out of a total score of 30. On comparing the 3-year versus 4-year residency program, there was no statistically significant difference between perceived competency scores and professional satisfaction scores. Among the study participants, 19 (10.4%) had 'serious burnout', and 22 (12%) had 'extremely serious burnout'. Professional satisfaction was significantly associated with burnout ( Conclusions: Based on the study results, there was no significant difference regarding academic performance, perceived competencies, and professional satisfaction among the graduates of the 3-year versus 4-year residency program. Approximately more than half of the graduates had suffered from burnout which was reported more by the females and those with financial issues. The majority of the respondents suggested improvements in clinical rotation and assessment methods.