↓ Skip to main content

Would changing the selection process for GP trainees stem the workforce crisis? A cohort study using multiple-imputation and simulation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Would changing the selection process for GP trainees stem the workforce crisis? A cohort study using multiple-imputation and simulation
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1160-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celia Taylor, I. C. McManus, Ian Davison

Abstract

There is currently a shortage of qualified GPs in the UK and not all of the training posts available each year are filled. Changing the way in which GP trainees are selected could help increase the training post fill rate and the number of new entrants to the GP Register. The aim of this study was to model the impact of changing the selection process for GP training on the number of trainees obtaining GP Registration, either with or without extensions. This was a cohort study using UK applications for GP training in 2011-14. Application data were linked using GMC numbers to training outcome data where available, and imputed using multiple imputation where missing. The number of trainees appointed and GP Registrations within three and five years' full-time-equivalent were estimated for four different selection processes. The cut scores used in the actual 2015 selection process makes it impossible to fill all training posts. Random selection is the worst option, but the difference between this and other processes modelled falls as more trainees are selected. There are large marginal effects on outcomes: those with the highest selection scores are more likely to obtain GP Registration than those with the lowest scores. Changing the selection process alone would have a small impact on the number of GP Registrations; reducing/removing cut scores would have a much larger impact. This would also increase the number of trainees requiring extensions and being released from training which would have adverse consequences for the profession.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 12 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 14 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2021.
All research outputs
#14,981,465
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,175
of 3,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,103
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#66
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.