ArticleBMC medical education2026
Exploring the potentials and pitfalls of work experience and widening participation through narrative interviews.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApplicant work experience (WE) is a non-academic criteria considered by many medical schools in their admissions processes. Concerns have been raised within the literature that access to some WE opportunities may be more elusive for students from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (LA-SDBs). Few qualitative studies exist which explore applicant experiences of WE, and its contribution to the widening access agenda. Our qualitative research explores the WE of applicants from a variety of socio-demographic backgrounds, and draws on Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘capital’ and ‘habitus’ as tools which enable critical analysis of the role work experience may play in the reproduction of inequality.
methodsNarrative telephone interviews were undertaken with 23 applicants to a large United Kingdom medical school in the 2017–18 admissions cycle, purposively sampled backed on school background, age, gender and widening participation experience. Framework analysis was applied to interview data, and themes and subthemes identified.
resultsWE remains a key step in the preparation process for applicants when applying to medical school. Participants suggested WE has the potential to confirm career choice and deepen understanding about the realities of a career in medicine. At times, applications from LA-SDB’s were provided with application support from healthcare professionals through WE which may have otherwise been inaccessible. Access to WE opportunities depended on access to information networks or school support, typically a barrier for those from LA-SDB’s, and myths and misinformation about WE were more commonly evident in this group.
conclusionMeaningful and equitable engagement in WE requires a consideration of more than just access to WE opportunities. Our results suggest that applicants require timely and transparent information on how best to engage with WE opportunities. Additionally, communication with under-represented schools, directed at dispelling myths and fostering meaningful reflection, may go some way to mitigate the risk of social and cultural disadvantage in applicants from LA-SDBs.
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.