Publication Component of the UK Foundation Programme Application: Perception of Medical Students.

INTRODUCTION: The 2-year UK foundation programme (FP) application is based on a scoring system and final year medical students are ranked and allocated to their preferred choice of region to work and train in based on their scores following graduation. Points are allocated to academic components including publications. We aim to evaluate UK medical students' perception of the publication component of the application. METHODS: A 15-item online survey based on students' perception of the publication component of the FP application was distributed to final year medical students from all UK medical schools. Opinions were sought via a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A total of 155 final year medical students from 9 medical schools completed the survey (response rate 155/1926, 8.05%). In the survey, 69.7% of students felt under pressure to achieve PubMed-indexed (PMI) publications, 7.1% were not aware that the FP application included points for PMI publications and 72.9% had no publications at the time of application. The main reasons for publishing were for the FP application (81.3% agreed) and to increase competitiveness for future specialty training (85.0% agreed). In contrast, 27.1% agreed that they were motivated to publish due to disseminating knowledge; 22.6% and 25.8% agreed that their medical school did not provide adequate training or opportunities for them to achieve PMI publications, respectively. CONCLUSION: The majority of students felt under pressure to publish with their primary motivation cited as enhancing their FP application. Overall training and opportunities to publish appear to be inadequate amongst the cohort studied. Medical schools should consider providing academic training and opportunities early to highlight the importance and rationale behind research/audits, minimise pressure and optimise research outputs in preparation for FP application.

Response to diagnosis of pre-diabetes in socioeconomically deprived areas: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes prevention is a key priority for the NHS, with a particular focus on populations at highest risk. The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) has been introduced, offering a course of dietary and lifestyle education to individuals with pre-diabetes. However, concerns about the NHS DPP include: (1) the possible unintended consequences of labelling more people with a 'pre-condition'; (2) the possibility of worsening health inequalities as people in socioeconomically deprived areas tend to access behaviour-change programmes less readily; (3) the appropriateness of an intervention focused on individuals versus population-wide public health policy interventions. AIM: To explore the experience of diagnosis of pre-diabetes, and understand the barriers and facilitators to uptake of the NHS DPP for people living in socioeconomically deprived areas. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study was undertaken. Participants with pre-diabetes were recruited from practices serving socioeconomically deprived areas of Sheffield, UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and continued until data saturation (23 participants). Thematic analysis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: Both healthcare context and an individual's personal and community context shaped response to diagnosis and likelihood of engaging with the NHS DPP. Patient activation was a useful concept in understanding response. Whether or not people participated in the NHS DPP, being diagnosed with pre-diabetes tended to provoke some degree of dietary change and did not cause significant anxiety for most. However, there were multiple barriers to engaging with the NHS DPP for this patient group. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing pre-diabetes can provoke an individual positive response, but the sociocultural environment often limits an individual's ability to engage with the NHS DPP or make lifestyle change.

UK medical students' perceptions, attitudes, and interest toward medical leadership and clinician managers.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine UK medical students' perceptions and attitudes and interest toward medical leadership and clinician managers. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during the academic year 2015-2016. An online questionnaire was distributed to 2,349 final-year students from 10 UK medical schools. Participants were asked to complete a 5-point Likert scale on their current perceptions, attitudes, and interest toward medical leadership and clinician managers. They were also asked to self-rate their leadership competences set by the Medical Leadership Competency Framework and to rate the quality of management and leadership training they received from their medical school. RESULTS: In total, we received 114 complete responses. Only 7.9% of respondents were in agreement (strongly agree or agree) when asked whether they felt they were well informed about what a managerial position in medicine entails. When asked whether clinicians should influence managerial decisions within a clinical setting, 94.7% of respondents were in agreement with the statement. About 85% of respondents were in agreement that it is important for clinicians to have managerial or leadership responsibilities, with 63.2% of students in agreement that they would have liked more management or leadership training during medical school. Over half the respondents rated their management and leadership training they received during medical school as "very poor" or "poor" (54.4%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that UK medical students have an appetite for management and leadership training and appreciate its importance but feel that the training they are receiving is poor. This suggests that there is a gap between the demand for management and leadership training and the quality of training supplied by UK medical schools.