ArticleBMC medical education2024
Protocol for the SELECT study: a sequential mixed methods study of the selection of UK medical students into clinical academic training.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternationally, there has been a move towards fostering diverse healthcare workforces that are representative of the patient populations they serve. Selection criteria for academic-clinicians often aim to capture skills and attributes that demonstrate both clinical and academic excellence. Currently, it is not known whether the selection criteria for early academic-clinical careers advantage or disadvantage certain ethnic or socioeconomic groups. The UK has a structured route of integrated clinical academic training with entry level training for newly qualified doctors administered through the 'Specialised Foundation Programme' which provides protected time for research within the first two years of postgraduate clinical training. In this study, we aim to identify what selection criteria are used within the UK Specialised Foundation Programme, and how these relate to demographic factors.
methodsWe will perform a mixed methods study consisting of a document analysis of person specifications and selection criteria used in the 2024 UK Specialised Foundation Programme, and a national cross-sectional survey of current medical students in the UK. We will obtain the person specifications, selection criteria, white space (open ended questions used during shortlisting) and interview questions and mark schemes from each Specialised Unit of Applications via information available on their websites or through Freedom of Information requests. Our survey will collect information relating to demographic data, selection criteria, and perceptions of specialised foundation programme selection. DISCUSSION: International literature has demonstrated inequity in academic markers used in selection of post-graduate clinicians and that disadvantages caused by selection can compound over time. As such it is important to understand what inequity exists within the selection of early academic-clinicians, as this can help inform more equitable selection practices and help nurture a more diverse academic-clinical workforce.
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.