↓ Skip to main content

A Qualitative Study of the Influences on Clinical Academic Physicians’ Postdoctoral Career Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Academic medicine, January 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 (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 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
A Qualitative Study of the Influences on Clinical Academic Physicians’ Postdoctoral Career Decision Making
Published in
Academic medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000002141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica F. Ranieri, Helen Barratt, Geraint Rees, Naomi J. Fulop

Abstract

To describe the influences on clinical academic physicians' postdoctoral career decision-making. Thirty-five doctoral trainee physicians from University College London took part in semi-structured interviews in 2015 and 2016. Participants were asked open-ended questions about their career to-date, their experiences undertaking a PhD, and their career plans post-PhD. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to generate, review, and define themes from the transcripts. Emerging differences and similarities in participants' reasons for pursuing a PhD were then grouped to produce typologies to explore how their experiences influenced their career decision-making. Participants described four key reasons for undertaking a PhD, which formed the basis of the four typologies identified. These reasons included: to pursue a clinical academic career; to complete an extensive period of research to understand whether a clinical academic career was the desired path forward; to improve clinical career prospects; and to take a break from clinical training. These findings highlight the need to target efforts at retaining clinical academic physicians according to their reasons for pursuing a PhD and their subsequent experiences with the process. Those responsible for overseeing clinical training must be well-informed of the long-term benefits of training academically-qualified physicians. In light of current political uncertainty, universities, hospitals, and external agencies alike must increase their efforts to inspire and assuage early-career clinical academic physicians' fears regarding their academic future.This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 6 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Social Sciences 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Psychology 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,082,050
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Academic medicine
#1,711
of 6,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,415
of 450,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic medicine
#49
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 450,227 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.