Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40178856›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Resident Physician Intentions Regarding Unionization.

Laura K Barger, Matthew D Weaver, Christopher P Landrigan, Jason P Sullivan, Rebecca Robbins, Ariel S Winn, Charles A Czeisler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Laura K BargerDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Matthew D WeaverDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christopher P LandriganDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jason P SullivanDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rebecca RobbinsDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ariel S WinnDivision of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charles A CzeislerDivision of Sleep and Circadian Disorders, Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

NIOSH CDC HHS R01 OH011773
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Resident physicians provide frontline care to approximately 70% of hospitalized patients. After decades of relative stability with a small minority of resident physicians unionized, unionization movements have succeeded in recent years at multiple major academic medical centers. Objective: To evaluate resident physicians' unionization intention and the factors informing their unionization consideration at their institution. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide survey study was conducted in May 2023 among a cohort of resident physicians, which was established over the course of 3 academic years (2020-2023). Resident physicians were invited to participate in an end-of-study survey on contemporary topics, which included questions on unionization. Exposure: Consideration of unionization by resident physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the presence of a union at the institution for physicians in training, the presence of a movement to unionize, whether the resident physician would vote to unionize, and the factors most important in considering unionization. All measures were self-reported. Results: A total of 1235 participants (mean [SD] age, 28.8 [3.6] years; 737 of 1224 females [60%]; 791 of 1086 (73%) in their first postgraduate year) responded to survey questions regarding unionization. Twenty percent of participants (n = 249) reported that physicians in training belonged to a union at their institution. Among the 986 nonunionized resident physicians, 63% (625) reported they would vote to unionize, whereas less than 10% (96) would not vote to unionize. Pay and work hours were the most commonly cited factors in considering unionization (88% [1081 of 1235 participants] and 76% [941 of 1235 participants], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, most resident physicians (>70%) reported either being in a union or supporting unionization at their institution, citing pay and financial security as critical factors in their consideration of unionization. Future research should investigate other factors and whether unionization achieves its goals of increased pay and benefits, work hours, and well-being.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelIntentionInternship and ResidencyLabor UnionsPhysiciansAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40178856
PMCPMC11969282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.