↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of fitness to practise declarations in UK medical undergraduates

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of fitness to practise declarations in UK medical undergraduates
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1167-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lewis W. Paton, Paul A. Tiffin, Daniel Smith, Jon S. Dowell, Lazaro M. Mwandigha

Abstract

Misconduct during medical school predicts subsequent fitness to practise (FtP) events in doctors, but relatively little is known about which factors are associated with such issues during undergraduate education. This study exploits the newly created UK medical education database (UKMED), with the aim of identifying predictors of conduct or health-related issues that could potentially impair FtP. The findings would have implications for policies related to both the selection and support of medical students. Data were available for 14,379 students obtaining provisional registration with the General Medical Council who started medical school in 2007 and 2008. FtP declarations made by students were available, as were various educational and demographic predictor variables, including self-report 'personality measures' for students who participated in UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) pilot studies. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the predictors of FtP declarations. Significant univariable predictors (p < 0.05) for conduct-related declarations included male gender, white ethnicity and a non-professional parental background. Male gender (OR 3.07) and higher 'self-esteem' (OR 1.45) were independently associated with an increased risk of a conduct issue. Female gender, a non-professional background, and lower self-reported 'confidence' were, among others, associated with increased odds of a health-related declaration. Only 'confidence' was a significant independent predictor of a health declaration (OR 0.69). Female gender, higher UKCAT score, a non-professional background and lower 'confidence' scores were significant predictors of reported depression, and the latter two variables were independent predictors of declared depression. White ethnicity and UK nationality were associated with increased odds of both conduct and health-related declarations, as were certain personality traits. Students from non-professional backgrounds may be at increased risk of depression and therefore could benefit from targeted support. The small effect sizes observed for the 'personality measures' suggest they would offer little potential benefit for selection, over and above those measures already in use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 28 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 32 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,956,456
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#277
of 3,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,835
of 329,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#13
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.