ArticleCureus2026
Perceptions of Plastic Surgery Training in the United Kingdom: A Mixed-Methods Trainee Survey.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlastic surgery training in the United Kingdom (UK) is a highly competitive and evolving field. Recent reforms have aimed to standardise operative exposure, academic opportunities, and mentorship, yet the perspectives of current trainees remain underexplored.
objectiveThis study assessed UK plastic surgery trainees' perceptions of their training quality, satisfaction, and preparedness for independent practice.
methodsA cross-sectional, anonymised online survey was distributed to UK plastic surgery trainees. The questionnaire included demographic items, views on training duration and fellowship structure, and satisfaction ratings across key domains of training using a five-point Likert scale. Free-text comments were thematically analysed to identify recurrent qualitative themes.
resultsFourteen trainees from multiple UK deaneries responded. Half reported three to four years of training (n = 7, 50%), and four (29%) had less than one year of training. Most respondents (n = 9, 64%) believed six years of training was sufficient to achieve key competencies, while two (14%) disagreed and three (21%) were uncertain. Opinions on fellowship structure were divided: seven (50%) supported integration within the six-year programme (5+1), six (43%) preferred a separate post-CCT (certificate of completion of training) fellowship (6+1), and one (7%) was unsure. Mean overall satisfaction was 3.2/5 (median = 3). Highest domain scores were supervisor involvement (mean = 3.5/5, n = 14) and case variety/hands-on opportunities (mean = 3.5/5, n = 14); lowest were research opportunities (mean = 2.9/5, n = 14) and work-life balance (mean = 3.0/5, n = 14). Qualitative responses highlighted five themes: limited operative exposure, inconsistent mentorship, regional variation, restricted research time, and the lasting impact of COVID-19.
conclusionsUK plastic surgery trainees report moderate satisfaction overall, with particular concern regarding research access and work-life balance. Qualitative feedback revealed recurring issues around mentorship and operative opportunities, consistent with national trainee trends.
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.