ArticleFuture healthcare journal2026
The state of specialty training in young adult and adolescent health in medical specialties in the UK: Resident doctors' and trainers' perspectives.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decision making at the front door.Future healthcare journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study objective: To assess current perceptions of training in adolescent and young adult healthcare among UK resident doctors and educational supervisors (ES), and to identify barriers and opportunities for improvement. Design: Cross-sectional national survey of resident doctors and ES, followed by qualitative focus group discussions. Setting: UK-wide, involving medical specialties participating in internal medicine training (IMT) and higher specialty training programmes. Participants: 670 resident doctors and 64 ES across 29 specialties. A subset of nine participants (four ES, five resident doctors) took part in focus groups. Main outcome measures: Exposure to training, confidence in managing adolescent medicine, awareness of transition care tools and policies, perceived barriers and suggestions for improvement. Results: 18% of resident doctors had attended transition clinics and 38% reported no formal training in adolescent medicine. 5% of respondents were aware of national training guidance. Confidence and preparedness were low, with significant variation across specialties. ES confirmed the importance of adolescent medicine training but noted systemic limitations. Key barriers included limited clinical opportunities, lack of curricular emphasis and poor interdepartmental coordination. Conclusions: Training in adolescent medicine remains inconsistent across UK specialties. System-wide reforms are needed to improve preparedness and care quality. This may include mandating adolescent care competencies, structured clinic access and integration into curricula.
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.