'They say': medical students' perceptions of General Practice, experiences informing these perceptions, and their impact on career intention-a qualitative study among medical students in England.

OBJECTIVES: The number of UK graduates choosing General Practice training remains significantly lower than the current numbers required to meet the demands of the service. This work aims to explore medical students' perceptions of General Practice, experiences which lead to the development of these perceptions, and the ultimate impact of these on career intention. DESIGN: This mixed-methods, qualitative study used focus groups, semistructured interviews, longitudinal audio diary data and debrief interviews to explore and capture the experiences and perceptions of students in their first and penultimate years of university. SETTING: Three English medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty students were recruited to focus groups from first and fourth/fifth year of study. All students in these years of study were invited to attend. Six students were recruited into the longitudinal diary study to further explore their experiences. RESULTS: This work identified that external factors, internal driving force and the 'they say' phenomenon were all influential on the development of perceptions and ultimately career intention. External factors may be split into human or non-human influences, for example, aspirational/inspirational seniors, family, peers (human), placements and 'the push' of GP promotion (non-human). Driving force refers to internal factors, to which the student compares their experiences in an ongoing process of reflection, to understand if they feel General Practice is a career they wish to pursue. The 'they say' phenomenon refers to a passive and pervasive perception, without a known source, whereby usually negative perceptions circulate around the undergraduate community. CONCLUSION: Future strategies to recruit graduates to General Practice need to consider factors at an undergraduate level. Positive placement experiences should be maximised, while avoiding overtly 'pushing' GP onto students.

Survey to identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland following the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Modified James Lind Alliance methodology; respondents completed an online survey to make research suggestions and rank research themes in order of priority. SETTING: Scotland primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals in primary care in Scotland and members of primary care patient and public involvement groups. 512 respondents provided research suggestions; 8% (n=40) did not work in health or social care; of those who did work, 68.8% worked in primary care, 16.3% community care, 11.7% secondary care, 4.5% third sector, 4.2% university (respondents could select multiple options). Of those respondents who identified as healthcare professionals, 33% were in nursing and midwifery professions, 25% were in allied health professions (of whom 45% were occupational therapists and 35% were physiotherapists), 20% were in the medical profession and 10% were in the pharmacy profession. MAIN OUTCOMES: Suggestions for research for primary care made by respondents were categorised into themes and subthemes by researchers and ranked in order of priority by respondents. RESULTS: There were 1274 research suggestions which were categorised under 12 themes and 30 subthemes. The following five themes received the most suggestions for research: disease and illness (n=461 suggestions), access (n=202), workforce (n=164), multidisciplinary team (MDT; n=143) and integration (n=108). One hundred and three (20%) respondents to the survey participated in ranking the list of 12 themes in order of research priority. The five most highly ranked research priorities were disease and illness, health inequalities, access, workforce and MDTs. The disease and illness theme had the greatest number of suggestions for research and was scored the most highly in the ranking exercise. The subtheme ranked as the most important research priority in the disease and illness theme was 'mental health'. CONCLUSIONS: The themes and subthemes identified in this study should inform research funders so that the direction of primary healthcare is informed by evidence.

Interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis: scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify pre-existing interventions to support the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis and to assess the quality of these interventions. DESIGN: Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework was used to identify the types of evidence available in the field of well-being interventions for healthcare workers during a pandemic. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ERIC databases were searched to find interventions for the well-being of doctors during pandemics. Owing to a lack of results, this search was expanded to all healthcare workers and to include any crisis. Databases were searched in June 2020 and again in October 2020. INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles were included that studied healthcare workers, reported an intervention design and were specifically designed for use during a pandemic or other crisis. Well-being was defined broadly and could include psychological, physical, social or educational interventions. RESULTS: Searching produced 10 529 total academic references of which 2062 were duplicates. This left 8467 references. Of these, 16 met our inclusion criteria and were included in data extraction. During data extraction, three more papers were excluded. This left 13 papers to summarise and report. Of these 13 papers, 6 were prospective studies and 7 were purely descriptive. None of the interventions were theoretically informed in their development and the quality of the evidence was generally deemed poor. CONCLUSIONS: There are no high-quality, theory-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic or other crisis. Given that previous pandemics have been shown to have a negative effect on healthcare workers well-being, it is imperative this shortcoming is addressed. This scoping review highlights the need for high-quality, theory-based and evidence-based interventions for the well-being of healthcare workers during a pandemic.