Dataset Information

Factors influencing subspecialty choice among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To characterise the contributing factors that affect medical students' subspecialty choice and to estimate the extent of influence of individual factors on the students' decision-making process.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Web of Science, CNKI and PubMed databases was conducted for studies published between January 1977 and June 2018. Information concerning study characteristics, influential factors and the extent of their influence (EOI) was extracted independently by two trained investigators. EOI is the percentage level that describes how much each of the factors influenced students' choice of subspecialty. The recruited medical students include students in medical school, internship, residency training and fellowship, who are about to or have just made a specialty choice. The estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model due to the between-study heterogeneity.

Results

Data were extracted from 75 studies (882 209 individuals). Overall, the factors influencing medical students' choice of subspecialty training mainly included academic interests (75.29%), competencies (55.15%), controllable lifestyles or flexible work schedules (53.00%), patient service orientation (50.04%), medical teachers or mentors (46.93%), career opportunities (44.00%), workload or working hours (37.99%), income (34.70%), length of training (32.30%), prestige (31.17%), advice from others (28.24%) and student debt (15.33%), with significant between-study heterogeneity (p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed that the EOI of academic interests was higher in developed countries than that in developing countries (79.66% [95% CI 70.73% to 86.39%] vs 60.41% [95% CI 43.44% to 75.19%]; Q=3.51, p=0.02). The EOI value of prestige was lower in developed countries than that in developing countries (23.96% [95% CI 19.20% to 29.47%] vs 47.65% [95% CI 34.41% to 61.24%]; Q=4.71, p=0.01).

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis provided a quantitative evaluation of the top 12 influencing factors associated with medical students' choice of subspecialty. Our findings provide the basis for the development of specific, effective strategies to optimise the distribution of physicians among different departments by modifying these influencing factors.

SUBMITTER: Yang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6429728 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence of pneumoconiosis worldwide and its influencing factors.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingCohort studies on occupational pneumoconiosis.ParticipantsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched until November 2021. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they involved at least one variable investigated as an influencing factor for the incidence of pneumoconiosis and reported either the parameters and 95% CIs of the risk fit to the data, or sufficient information to allow for the calculation of those values.Primary outcome measuresThe pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs of influencing factors.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 335 424 participants, of whom 29 972 developed pneumoconiosis. The pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis was 0.093 (95% CI 0.085 to 0.135). We identified the following influencing factors: (1) male (RR 3.74; 95% CI 1.31 to 10.64; p=0.01), (2) smoking (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.43; p=0.0001), (3) tunnelling category (RR 4.75; 95% CI 1.96 to 11.53; p<0.0001), (4) helping category (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.16; p<0.0001), (5) age (the highest incidence occurs between the ages of 50 and 60), (6) duration of dust exposure (RR 4.59, 95% CI 2.41 to 8.74, p<0.01) and (7) cumulative total dust exposure (CTD) (RR 34.14, 95% CI 17.50 to 66.63, p<0.01). A dose-response analysis revealed a significant positive linear dose-response association between the risk of pneumoconiosis and duration of exposure and CTD (P-non-linearity=0.10, P-non-linearity=0.16; respectively). The Pearson correlation analysis revealed that silicosis incidence was highly correlated with cumulative silica exposure (r=0.794, p<0.001).ConclusionThe incidence of pneumoconiosis in occupational workers was 0.093 and seven factors were found to be associated with the incidence, providing some insight into the prevention of pneumoconiosis.Prospero registration numberCRD42022323233.