Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42584039›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2026

Competition and equity in NHS specialty training, 2021-2024: longitudinal cohort analysis of protected-characteristic outcomes.

Dinesh Aggarwal, Meera Roy-Chowdhury, Nicola Xiang, Sharon J Peacock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dinesh AggarwalImperial College London, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5938-8172
Meera Roy-ChowdhuryJones Lang LaSalle, London, UK.
Nicola XiangChelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Sharon J PeacockDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1718-2782

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate recruitment equity for NHS specialty training posts between 2021-2024, characterising demographics, quantifying appointment disparities by protected characteristics and assessing temporal trends.

designLongitudinal cohort study using national recruitment data via annual Freedom of Information requests.

settingNational Health Service, UK.

participantsAll medical and surgical specialty training applications to NHS England (2021-2024).

main outcome measuresApplication success by protected characteristics.

resultsOf 214,893 applications, 52,998 (24.7%) were appointed. Annual success rates fell from 12,419/37,971 (32.7%) in 2021 to 13,929/81,189 (17.2%) in 2024. Competitiveness increased but non-UK graduate applications did not reduce successful UK graduate numbers. Gender segregation persisted: surgical specialties had the highest proportion of male applicants, whereas for females this was observed in obstetrics and gynaecology. Female applicants had higher success rates than males (27.5% vs 22.2%; Δ5.3%, 95% CI 4.95-5.70,

conclusionsInequities persist in NHS specialty recruitment. Gender segregation remains and disparities disadvantage pregnant/maternity-leave applicants. Disparities impacting minority ethnic UK graduates have widened. While data constraints preclude adjusting for confounders, these consistent trends require continuous monitoring and targeted interventions to ensure equitable access.

Indexed as

differential attainmenthealthcare workforceMedical EducationNHS specialty recruitmentprotected characteristicsresident doctorsworkforce equity

Identifiers

PMID42584039
PMCPMC13473330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.