Protocol for the SELECT study: a sequential mixed methods study of the selection of UK medical students into clinical academic training.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there has been a move towards fostering diverse healthcare workforces that are representative of the patient populations they serve. Selection criteria for academic-clinicians often aim to capture skills and attributes that demonstrate both clinical and academic excellence. Currently, it is not known whether the selection criteria for early academic-clinical careers advantage or disadvantage certain ethnic or socioeconomic groups. The UK has a structured route of integrated clinical academic training with entry level training for newly qualified doctors administered through the 'Specialised Foundation Programme' which provides protected time for research within the first two years of postgraduate clinical training. In this study, we aim to identify what selection criteria are used within the UK Specialised Foundation Programme, and how these relate to demographic factors. METHODS: We will perform a mixed methods study consisting of a document analysis of person specifications and selection criteria used in the 2024 UK Specialised Foundation Programme, and a national cross-sectional survey of current medical students in the UK. We will obtain the person specifications, selection criteria, white space (open ended questions used during shortlisting) and interview questions and mark schemes from each Specialised Unit of Applications via information available on their websites or through Freedom of Information requests. Our survey will collect information relating to demographic data, selection criteria, and perceptions of specialised foundation programme selection. DISCUSSION: International literature has demonstrated inequity in academic markers used in selection of post-graduate clinicians and that disadvantages caused by selection can compound over time. As such it is important to understand what inequity exists within the selection of early academic-clinicians, as this can help inform more equitable selection practices and help nurture a more diverse academic-clinical workforce.

Exploring how starting work during COVID-19 impacted post-foundation career decisions of new doctors: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: This study addressed two research questions: What factors do doctors in training describe as influencing their choices to apply (or not apply) for specialty training during their Foundation Year 2? Which of these factors are specific to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the unique experiences of the cohort of doctors who qualified early during the pandemic? DESIGN: Sequential explanatory mixed methods study: Quantitative survey. Qualitative semistructured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed with logistic regression. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. SETTING: UK-wide. PARTICIPANTS: Junior doctors who graduated medical school in 2020. SURVEY: 320 participants (22% of those contacted). 68% (n=219) were female, 60% (n=192) under 25 and 35% (n=112) 25-30. 72% (n=230) were white, 18% (n=58) Asian and 3% (n=10) black. Interviews: 20 participants, 10 had applied for specialty training, 10 had not. RESULTS: A minority of respondents had applied for specialty training to start in 2022 (114, 36%). While burnout varied, with 15% indicating high burnout, this was not associated with the decision to apply. This decision was predicted by having taken time off due to work-related stress. Those who had not taken time off were 2.4 times more likely to have applied for specialty training (OR=2.43, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.34). Interviews found reasons for not applying included wanting to 'step off the treadmill' of training; perceptions of training pathways as inflexible, impacting well-being; and disillusionment with the community and vocation of healthcare, based, in part, on their experiences working through COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Participants infrequently cited factors specific to the pandemic had impacted their decision-making but spoke more broadly about challenges associated with increasing pressure on the health service and an eroded sense of vocation and community.

Barriers and facilitators to establishing a clinical academic career in clinical education research in the UK: A focus group study.

In a rapidly changing healthcare environment, we need a robust evidence base to inform effective education and training. This study aimed to examine factors perceived to determine career progression in clinical education research in the UK. Six online focus groups were conducted, with 35 participants from a range of medical, dental, nursing, and allied health professions who identified as aspiring or early career clinical education researchers. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis. Two themes and associated subthemes were constructed to illustrate perceived factors impacting on career development: (1) A cultural challenge from clinical norms. Challenges included differences between the epistemological assumptions of biomedical and clinical research, and the underlying philosophy of education research, which is more closely aligned with the knowledge generation of the social sciences. This led to difficulty communicating the impact of education research to patient care. There were also blurred boundaries between education delivery and research, with the latter lacking a clearly defined group identity. (2) Structures, systems and relationships for career progression. Practical considerations included time and funding (or lack thereof), the opportunity to undertake formal training, networking and role models. This research highlights a number of systemic barriers and facilitators to careers in clinical education research and offers targets of intervention to enable a sustainable academic workforce in clinical education research.

How to navigate entry into the field of clinical education research and scholarship.

Clinical education research (ClinEdR) is a growing field that aims to ensure the way healthcare professionals are taught and learn is evidence-based. There is growing interest in how this evidence is generated in a robust, timely and cost-effective fashion. In this 'How to …' paper, we draw on relevant literature and our own experiences to offer suggestions on how novice researchers can navigate entry into the field of ClinEdR. We summarise key resources for those at the earliest stages of their interest in ClinEdR and scholarship and provide personal experiences of networking, collaborating and balancing research with a clinical or teaching role. This paper will be of interest to those at any stage in their clinical career with little to no experience of ClinEdR, but the enthusiasm to get started.