ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Analysis of District Residency Program in Surgical Specialties at a University Teaching Hospital.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
Background: The District Residency Programme (DRP) mandates three-month postings for postgraduate residents in district hospitals across India in various specialties to address healthcare disparities. While the programme demonstrates potential benefits in general medical specialties, its impact on surgical training requires critical evaluation. Methods: This mixed-methods study involved 75 postgraduate surgical residents who completed mandatory DRP postings at a university teaching hospital in India. Data were collected through standardized questionnaires with Likert-scale items and qualitative open-ended questions, analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Quantitative findings revealed significant limitations in surgical exposure, with 72% of residents reporting limited clinical exposure and 64% experiencing reduced hands-on surgical training during DRP. However, 90% reported enhanced understanding of community healthcare needs, and 80% noted improved patient communication skills. Qualitative analysis identified three key themes: the tension between autonomy and supervision, enhanced community connection, and frustration with resource limitations. While residents valued the increased decision-making autonomy and community engagement, they expressed concerns about inadequate specialist supervision and infrastructure deficiencies impacting surgical skill development. Conclusion: The DRP significantly contributes to residents' professional identity formation and community health orientation but may compromise specialized surgical training. Recommendations include developing structured surgical curricula for district settings, implementing enhanced supervision models, integrating technology-enhanced learning, improving infrastructure, providing faculty development for district hospital staff, and establishing systematic programme evaluation to optimize the DRP for surgical specialties.
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.