Dataset Information

Factors influencing specialty choice and the effect of recall bias on findings from Irish medical graduates: a cross-sectional, longitudinal study.

ABSTRACT: Background: Despite being a vital part of medical workforce planning and development, how medical students and graduates choose their career specialty is still not well understood. This study aimed to identify the factors medical graduates consider important influences in their choice of specialty after their first year of practice, and to test the validity of relying on respondent recall to measure changes in specialty choice.

Methods: The baseline survey was administered online to all final year students in Ireland's six medical schools. Those who consented to follow-up (n =?483) were surveyed 18?months later (June 2018), during the final month of first year of practice.

Results: The baseline survey had a 67% (n =?483) response rate. At the follow-up survey, (n =?232, 48% response rate) the top specialty choices were: Medicine, n =?54 (26%); Surgery, n =?34 (16%); General Practice, n =?28 (13%); Anaesthesia, n =?16 (8%) and Paediatrics, n =?14 (7%). Of the 49 respondents (28%) reporting a change of specialty since baseline, 13 (27%) selected the same specialty in both surveys; of the 121 (69%) reporting no change, 22 (18%) selected a different specialty at follow-up. Over 90% of respondents rated as 'important or 'very important': 'Own aptitude', 'Work-life balance' and 'What I really want to do'. Over 75% rated as 'not at all', or 'not very important' 'Current financial debt' and 'Inclinations before medical school'. When adjusted for sex and age, compared with Medicine, General Practice rated as more important: continuity of patient care (RRR 3.20 CI(1.59-6.41), p =?0.001); working hours/conditions (RRR 4.61 CI(1.03-20.60), p =?0.045) and a career that fit their domestic circumstances (RRR 3.19 CI(1.27-8.02), p =?0.014). Those choosing Surgery rated as less important: patient contact (RRR 0.56 CI(0.33-0.95), p =?0.033) and working hours/conditions (RRR 0.55 CI(0.31-0.96), p =?0.035).

Conclusions: The different demographic and motivational profiles by specialty choice are consistent with other studies suggesting a distinct profile for doctors intending to enter General Practice. In addition, our results suggest longitudinal study designs guard against recall bias and so provide more robust medical workforce models to inform and direct recruitment drives and interventions in future medical workforce planning.

SUBMITTER: Cronin FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7709240 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors influencing specialty choice and the effect of recall bias on findings from Irish medical graduates: a cross-sectional, longitudinal study.

Cronin Frances M FM Clarke Nicholas N Hendrick Louise L Conroy Ronan R Brugha Ruairi R

BMC medical education 20201202 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite being a vital part of medical workforce planning and development, how medical students and graduates choose their career specialty is still not well understood. This study aimed to identify the factors medical graduates consider important influences in their choice of specialty after their first year of practice, and to test the validity of relying on respondent recall to measure changes in specialty choice.<h4>Methods</h4>The baseline survey was administered online to ...[more]

PMID: 33267801

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.DesignRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.SettingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.Participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.Primary outcome measureOdds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.ResultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.

Project description:BackgroundChoosing a medical specialty is an important, complex, and not fully understood process. The present study investigated the factors that are related to choosing and rejecting medical specialties in a group of students and recent medical doctors.Methodology and findingsA cross-sectional survey of 1,223 medical students and doctors was performed in Brazil in 2012. A standardized literature-based questionnaire was applied that gathered preferable or rejected specialties, and asked questions about extracurricular experiences and the influence of 14 factors on a Likert-type scale from 0 to 4. Specialties were grouped according to lifestyle categories: controllable and uncontrollable, which were subdivided into primary care, internal medicine, and surgical specialties. Notably, the time period of rejection was usually earlier than the time period of intended choice (p < 0.0001, χ(2) = 107.2). The choice mainly occurred during the internship period in medical school (n = 466; 38.7%). An overall large frequency of participation in extracurricular activities was observed (n = 1,184; 95.8%), which were highly associated with the respective medical area. Orthopedic surgery had the highest correlation with participation in specialty-specific organized groups (OR = 59.9, 95% CI = 21.6-166.3) and psychiatry was correlated with participation in research groups (OR = 18.0, 95% CI = 9.0-36.2). With regard to influential factors in controllable lifestyle specialties, "financial reason" (mean score ± standard deviation: 2.8 ± 1.0; median = 3) and "personal time" (3.1 ± 1.3; median = 4) were important factors. In primary care, these factors were less important (1.7 ± 1.3 and 1.7 ± 1.5, respectively; median = 2 for both), and higher scores were observed for "curricular internship" (3.2 ± 1.1, median = 4) and "social commitment" (2.6 ± 1.3, median = 3).ConclusionThe present findings provide important insights into developing strategies to stimulate interest in specialties based on the needs of the Brazilian healthcare system.

Dataset Information

Factors influencing specialty choice and the effect of recall bias on findings from Irish medical graduates: a cross-sectional, longitudinal study.

Publications

Factors influencing specialty choice and the effect of recall bias on findings from Irish medical graduates: a cross-sectional, longitudinal study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets