ArticleBMJ open2024
Sustained benefits of a generalist training programme for UK doctors: a survey-based follow-up study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning Away from Home. A Qualitative Study of General Practice Trainees' Educational Experiences in Hospitals.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to conduct a follow-up of all broad-based training (BBT) trainees who participated in the original evaluation completed in 2017. The follow-up study explored the impact of BBT on career decisions, sustained benefits and unintended disadvantages of the programme, and views on the future of training.
designScoping interviews informed the design of an online survey. The interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The survey was piloted with six volunteers and sent out to all former BBT trainees. Data from the survey were transferred to Excel and SPSS for analysis. The open-text comments on the survey were subject to a thematic content analysis.
settingParticipants were working in general practice, paediatrics, psychiatry or medicine.
participantsEight former BBT trainees participated in the scoping interviews. Interview participants were selected to ensure a diversity of current specialties and to represent all three BBT cohorts. All former BBT trainees were invited to complete the survey (n=118) and 70 replied.
resultsThe benefits of BBT were sustained over time: participants were confident in their career decisions, took a holistic approach to care and capitalised on their experiences in other specialties in their current roles. A minority of trainees also experienced temporary challenges when they joined a specialty training programme after completing the BBT. Whatever their specialty, experience in core medicine, paediatrics, psychiatry and general practice was valued. Disadvantages were short-lived (catching up on transition specialty training) or affected a minority (impact on sense of belonging).
conclusionsThe BBT programme supported the development of generalist doctors. Greater attention needs to be given to training secondary care doctors who take a holistic view of the patient and navigate their specialist care.
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.