Dataset Information

Clinical scientists' early career choices and progression: an exploratory mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Understanding the influences on healthcare professionals' career choices and progression can inform interventions to improve workforce retention. Retention of health professionals is a high priority worldwide, in order to maintain expertise and meet the needs of national populations. In the UK, investment in clinical scientists' pre-registration education is high and the need to retain motivated scientists recognised.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study to investigate the career choices and progression of early career clinical scientists. First job sector and salary of trainees who completed the UK pre-registration Scientist Training Programme (STP) between 2014 and 2019 were analysed using descriptive statistics and Chi-Squared tests. Semi-structured interviews conducted with volunteer practising clinical scientists who completed the programme in 2015 or 2016 were analysed thematically and reviewed for alignment with theories for understanding career choice and workforce retention.

Results

Most scientists who completed the STP between 2014 and 2019 obtained a post in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and achieved the expected starting salary. Life scientists were more likely to work in non-NHS healthcare settings than other scientific divisions; and physiological scientists less likely to achieve the expected starting salary. Experiences during training influenced career choice and progression 0-3 years post qualification, as did level of integration of training places with workforce planning. Specialty norms, staff turnover, organisational uncertainty and geographical preferences influenced choices in both the short (0-3 years) and longer term (5 + years). Interviewees reported a strong commitment to public service; and some could foresee that these priorities would influence future decisions about applying for management positions. These factors aligned with the components of job embeddedness theory, particularly that of 'fit'.

Conclusions

Training experiences, personal values, specialty norms and organisational factors all influence UK clinical scientists' early career choices and progression. Job embeddedness theory provides a useful lens through which to explore career choice and progression; and suggests types of intervention that can enhance the careers of this essential group. Interventions need to take account of variations between different scientific specialties.

SUBMITTER: Smith M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChanges to the structure of medical training worldwide require doctors to decide on their career specialty at an increasingly early stage after graduation. We studied trends in career choices for surgery, and the eventual career destinations, of UK graduates who declared an early preference for surgery.MethodsPostal questionnaires were sent, at regular time intervals after qualification, to all medical qualifiers from all UK medical schools in selected qualification years between 1974 and 2005. They were sent in the first year after qualification, at year three and five years after qualification, and at longer time intervals thereafter.ResultsResponses were received from 27,749 of 38,280 doctors (73%) at year one, 23,468 of 33,151 (71%) at year three, and 17,689 of 24,870 (71%) at year five. Early career preferences showed that surgery has become more popular over the past two decades. Looking forward from early career choice, 60% of respondents (64% of men, 48% of women) with a first preference for a surgical specialty at year one eventually worked in surgery (p < 0.001 for the male-female comparison). Looking backward from eventual career destinations, 90% of responders working in surgery had originally specified a first choice for a surgical specialty at year one. 'Match' rates between eventual destinations and early choices were much higher for surgery than for other specialties. Considering factors that influenced early specialty choice 'a great deal', comparing aspiring surgeons and aspiring general practitioners (GPs), a significantly higher percentage who chose surgery than general practice specified enthusiasm for the specialty (73% vs. 53%), a particular teacher or department (34% vs. 12%), inclinations before medical school (20% vs. 11%), and future financial prospects (24% vs. 13%); and a lower percentage specified that hours and working conditions had influenced their choice (21% vs. 71%). Women choosing surgery were influenced less than men by their inclinations before medical school or by their future financial prospects.ConclusionsSurgery is a popular specialty choice in the UK. The great majority of doctors who progressed in a surgical career made an early and definitive decision to do so.

Project description:PurposeShortage and maldistribution of medical specialists hamper healthcare quality. The specialist career choices of house officers determines the future composition of healthcare systems. We studied house officers'' specialist career choices and motivators for their choice.Participants and methodsWe conducted online in-depth interviews among seven house officers using an interview guide developed based on a literature review. The transcripts were analyzed. Major themes were identified. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, and the main and sub-themes were identified as motivators for specialist career choice. An online survey was done among 185 house officers. Content validation of motivators for specialist choice was done using exploratory factor analysis. First, second and third choices for a specialist career were identified. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done to determine the socio-demographic factors and motivators associated with the first choice.ResultsHOs perceived that specialist training opportunities provide a wide range of clinical competencies through well-structured, comprehensive training programs under existing specialist training pathways. Main challenges were limited local specialist training opportunities and hurdles for 'on-contract' HO to pursue specialist training. Motivators for first-choice specialty were related to 'work schedule', 'patient care characteristics', 'specialty characteristics', 'personal factors', 'past work experience', 'training factors', and 'career prospects.' House officers' first choices were specialties related to medicine (40.5%), surgery (31.5%), primary care (14.6%), and acute care (13.5%). On multivariate analysis, "younger age", "health professional in the family", "work schedule and personal factors", "career prospects" and "specialty characteristics" were associated with the first choice.ConclusionsMedical and surgical disciplines were the most preferred disciplines and their motivators varied by individual discipline. Overall work experiences and career prospects were the most important motivators for the first-choice specialty. The information about motivational factors is helpful to develop policies to encourage more doctors to choose specialties with a shortage of doctors and to provide career specialty guidance.

Project description:BackgroundMedical students are increasingly choosing nonsurgical specialties; observership programs can address factors influencing them toward surgical careers by allowing preclerkship exposure and mentorship, and correcting misconceptions. The aims of this study were to assess the influence of a peer-led observership program at the Université de Montréal on the career choices of preclinical medical students and to determine the factors associated with a positive observership experience.MethodsWe used a quasi-experimental convergent mixed-methods questionnaire design. From Nov. 19 to Dec. 31, 2018, and Mar. 1 to Apr. 4, 2019, all medical students participating in the observership program were eligible for the study; there were no ineligibility criteria. Using a prospective purposive sampling method, we recruited students via the email sent to confirm their observership. In the week after their observership, we invited the students by email to complete a postintervention survey. We used nonparametric tests to evaluate the impact of the observership on participants' career choices and an inductive data-driven thematic analysis to analyze their responses.ResultsOf the 204 students who participated, 157 provided consent, of whom 85 (54.1%) completed questionnaires both before and after the observership. The majority of participants were interested in a surgical specialty before (72 [85%]) and after (68 [84%]) the observership. There was no significant change in the students' choices of surgical specialties after the observership. However, most (68 [81%]) reported being more interested in a surgical career as a result of the observership, which allowed them to see that the type of practice they considered was congruent with a surgical career. Their perceptions of the field of surgery became positive, particularly regarding its pace and atmosphere and the humanistic patient-doctor relationship it required. The experience was influenced by surgeons' and teams' attitudes toward students, knowledge-sharing and quality of exposure. Participants mentioned that their willingness to participate was in part responsible for the success of their experience.ConclusionThis observership program allowed an early, positive introduction of students to surgery while challenging stereotypes. It provided a better understanding of surgery, enabling participants to consider this field and potentially influencing their residency application.

Project description:BackgroundClinician-educator (CE) careers in academic medicine are heterogeneous. Expectations for CEs have grown, along with a need to better prepare CEs for these roles.ObjectiveTo assess whether advanced education training is associated with productivity and success.DesignWe used a sequential mixed methods approach, collecting quantitative survey data and qualitative focus groups data. We developed a three-tiered categorization of advanced training to reflect intensity by program type.ParticipantsWe surveyed CEs in the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and conducted two focus groups at an SGIM annual meeting.Main measuresPrimary outcomes were academic productivity (manuscripts, presentations, etc.) and leadership role attainment. Secondary analysis examined the interactive effect of gender and training intensity on these outcomes.Key resultsA total of 198 completed the survey (response rate 53%). Compared with medium- or low-intensity training, high-intensity training was associated with a greater likelihood of publishing ≥ 3 first- or senior-author manuscripts (adjusted OR 2.6; CI 0.8-8.6; p = 0.002), teaching ≥ 3 lectures/workshops at the regional/national/international level (adjusted OR 5.7; CI 1.5-21.3; p = 0.001), and having ≥ 3 regional/national committee memberships (adjusted OR 3.4; CI 1.0-11.7; p = 0.04). Among participants in the "no training" and "high-intensity training" categories, men were more likely to have ≥ 3 publications (OR 4.87 and 3.17, respectively), while women in the high intensity category had a likelihood similar to men with no training (OR 4.81 vs. OR 4.87). Participants felt the value of advanced training exists not only in content but also in networking opportunities that programs provide.ConclusionsWhile opinions were divided as to whether advanced training is necessary to position oneself for education roles, it is associated with greater academic productivity and reduced gender disparity in the publication domain. Institutions should consider providing opportunities for CEs to pursue advanced education training.