ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring how starting work during COVID-19 impacted post-foundation career decisions of new doctors: a mixed methods 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study addressed two research questions: What factors do doctors in training describe as influencing their choices to apply (or not apply) for specialty training during their Foundation Year 2? Which of these factors are specific to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the unique experiences of the cohort of doctors who qualified early during the pandemic?
designSequential explanatory mixed methods study: Quantitative survey. Qualitative semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed with logistic regression. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
settingUK-wide.
participantsJunior doctors who graduated medical school in 2020. SURVEY: 320 participants (22% of those contacted). 68% (n=219) were female, 60% (n=192) under 25 and 35% (n=112) 25-30. 72% (n=230) were white, 18% (n=58) Asian and 3% (n=10) black. Interviews: 20 participants, 10 had applied for specialty training, 10 had not.
resultsA minority of respondents had applied for specialty training to start in 2022 (114, 36%). While burnout varied, with 15% indicating high burnout, this was not associated with the decision to apply. This decision was predicted by having taken time off due to work-related stress. Those who had not taken time off were 2.4 times more likely to have applied for specialty training (OR=2.43, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.34). Interviews found reasons for not applying included wanting to 'step off the treadmill' of training; perceptions of training pathways as inflexible, impacting well-being; and disillusionment with the community and vocation of healthcare, based, in part, on their experiences working through COVID-19.
conclusionsParticipants infrequently cited factors specific to the pandemic had impacted their decision-making but spoke more broadly about challenges associated with increasing pressure on the health service and an eroded sense of vocation and community.
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.