ArticleBMJ open2025
How do programme directors perceive trainee attrition? A qualitative focus group study in three Dutch teaching hospitals.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo gain insight into programme directors' (PDs') perceptions of trainee attrition from postgraduate medical education (PGME), focusing on interactions between stakeholders within the learning environment and roles of PDs in the process leading to attrition. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsWe performed a focus group study with 27 PDs from three Dutch teaching hospitals and analysed transcripts using template analysis.
resultsPDs identified attrition as a multilevel problem, in which personal, workplace and system-bound factors play a role. PDs mentioned balancing professional and personal responsibilities, in particular parenthood and high ambitions, as important trainee-related factors. PDs adopt different, at times conflicting, roles when guiding trainees, for example, assessor and mentor, and they struggle to balance these roles. They displayed various emotions when discussing attrition, varying from disappointment to frustration and anger, yet could also frame attrition positively as new opportunity. PDs used numerous resources to support trainees in difficulty, in a reactive rather than in a pro-active manner. A generation difference between faculty and trainees regarding work-life balance was mentioned as impeding mutual understanding. On the system level, PDs observed how implicit beliefs and negative interactions between actors in the learning environment impede trainees' well-being.
conclusionsPDs perceived trainee attrition as a multi-level problem that highlighted conflicting roles for the PD and evoked a wide range of emotions. The authors propose the following interventions: (1) address conflicting roles of PDs by reallocating specific tasks to other independent 'third parties', for example, professional coaching; (2) implement pro-active support for trainees unrelated to assessment; (3) create awareness of implicit assumptions of stakeholders and promote social belonging; (4) foster a supportive learning climate with clinical leaders as role models.
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.