4.6 Article

Timing and Stability of Fellowship Choices during Pediatric Residency: A Longitudinal Survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 294-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.034

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Board of Pediatrics Foundation [N023287]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine, among pediatric residents. the timing and stability of decisions to pursue fellowship training and select a specific subspecialty, which can be used to inform strategies to better match the distribution of pediatric subspecialist with the needs of children. Study design A longitudinal survey administered with the General Pediatrics In-training Exam to pediatric residents in the US and Canada, 2010-2014. The study included residents who responded in each of their first 3 years of residency and indicated plans to enter fellowship or matriculated, 2013-2016, into 1 of the 14 medical subspecialty fellowships for which the American Board of Pediatrics grants a certificate. Descriptive and chi(2) statistics were calculated. Results Of the 7580 residents who completed 3 annual surveys (response rate 99%) 4963 (65.5%) indicated plans to pursue fellowship training and 2843 (37.5%) matriculated into fellowship. Residents who did not enter fellowship were in smaller residency programs and programs with less interest in fellowship among interns. Most residents who matriculated into fellowship (68.4%) planned to do so as interns and maintained that plan throughout residency. In contrast, 22.7% had selected a specific subspecialty as interns. Fellowship decisions were made later in residency by female residents, American Medical Graduates, and residents in programs where <50% of interns planned to pursue fellowship training. Timing and stability of decisions varied across subspecialty fields. Conclusions Understanding the timing of pediatric medical subspecialty fellowship decisions could be used to shape medical education and, ultimately, the pediatric workforce.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据