ArticleBMJ open2024
Association between physicians' maldistribution and core clinical competency of resident physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Student-Reported Digital Daily Logs and Human-Verified AI-Assisted Reflection Coding to Describe Clinical Experiences in Community-Based Clerkships: Exploratory Observational Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Current Landscape of Generative AI Use as a Search Engine Among Resident Physicians: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- From class consciousness to class suicide: considering community integration as a primary care ethic.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Associations between patient care ownership, burnout, and job satisfaction among medical residents: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith physician maldistribution recognised as a global issue, Japan implemented the physician uneven distribution (PUD) index as a strategic measure. Currently, there is a lack of objective assessment of core clinical competencies in regions influenced by varying levels of physician distribution. In this study, we objectively assess the core clinical competencies in regions affected by physician maldistribution and explore the relationship between the PUD index and the clinical competencies of resident physicians. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsIn this cross-sectional study, we gathered data from the January 2023 General Medicine In-Training Examination (GM-ITE) survey. Participants included postgraduate year 1 and 2 resident physicians in Japanese hospitals mandating the GM-ITE or those who voluntarily took it. The GM-ITE scores of the resident physicians were assessed. The PUD index, a Japanese policy indicator, reflects regional physician disparities. A low PUD index signals a medical supply shortage compared with local demand. The trial registration number is 23-7.
resultsThe high and low PUD index groups included 2143 and 1580 participants, respectively. After adjusting for relevant confounders, multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that the low PUD index group had significantly higher GM-ITE scores than the high PUD index group (adjusted coefficient: 1.14; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.65; p<0.001).
conclusionsThe study revealed no clinically differences in GM-ITE scores between residents in regions with disparate physician distributions, suggesting that factors beyond PUD may influence clinical competency. This finding prompts a re-evaluation of whether current assessment methodologies or educational frameworks fully support learning across varied community settings.
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.