Design: Qualitative study using focus group discussions. Participants' responses were audio recorded, transcribed, grouped under various domains and listed out and analysed.
Setting: A private medical college in Perak state, Malaysia.
Participants: Forty-six medical students from years 2 to 5 were included. Eight focus groups were formed with two focus groups from each academic year (six students each in seven groups and four students in one group). Students were informed through their respective student leader of each year and received a participant information sheet and an informed consent form which were completed and returned if they decided to participate in the focus group discussions.
Results: The participants had different levels of understanding of primary care depending on their level of exposure to primary care. Senior students with more exposure had a better understanding about primary care and its services. Attractive factors towards choosing primary care as a career included short working hours with a more balanced family and social life, being able to treat patients as a whole with continuity of care and closer relationship with patients. Unattractive factors included routine, unchallenging and boring practice, poor salary, work overload and administrative work in government clinics, being less recognised by other specialties; and the poor perception by other doctors that those pursuing primary care were not 'brilliant enough' for more 'sophisticated disciplines like surgery or paediatrics'.
Conclusion: This study showed that the medical students' level of exposure to primary care played a crucial role in determining their understanding of primary care practice and their choice of career in primary care. Issues to be addressed include remuneration, workload and the prejudice against primary care as a career pathway. Suggestions included introducing early exposure to fun and challenging primary care postings in the medical curriculum and producing well trained, skilled and enthusiastic role models.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted online in-depth interviews among seven house officers using an interview guide developed based on a literature review. The transcripts were analyzed. Major themes were identified. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, and the main and sub-themes were identified as motivators for specialist career choice. An online survey was done among 185 house officers. Content validation of motivators for specialist choice was done using exploratory factor analysis. First, second and third choices for a specialist career were identified. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done to determine the socio-demographic factors and motivators associated with the first choice.
RESULTS: HOs perceived that specialist training opportunities provide a wide range of clinical competencies through well-structured, comprehensive training programs under existing specialist training pathways. Main challenges were limited local specialist training opportunities and hurdles for 'on-contract' HO to pursue specialist training. Motivators for first-choice specialty were related to 'work schedule', 'patient care characteristics', 'specialty characteristics', 'personal factors', 'past work experience', 'training factors', and 'career prospects.' House officers' first choices were specialties related to medicine (40.5%), surgery (31.5%), primary care (14.6%), and acute care (13.5%). On multivariate analysis, "younger age", "health professional in the family", "work schedule and personal factors", "career prospects" and "specialty characteristics" were associated with the first choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical disciplines were the most preferred disciplines and their motivators varied by individual discipline. Overall work experiences and career prospects were the most important motivators for the first-choice specialty. The information about motivational factors is helpful to develop policies to encourage more doctors to choose specialties with a shortage of doctors and to provide career specialty guidance.
METHODS: Fifth year dental students at JUST were invited to fill out a paper based self-administered questionnaire. Data was collected on students` demographics, their future career plans and the impact of social and economic changes on such plans, their interest in postgraduate studies and the specialty of choice in addition to the influence of a group of factors on that choice. Data was also collected on the value of non-academic workshops, guidance regarding career plans, participants` preferred pattern of work (full-time versus part-time) and retirement plans. Students were categorized according to their nationalities. Pearson's chi squared test, one way ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to measure statistical significance between measured variables and backgrounds of participants. The level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 227 students completed the survey (response rate = 84%). 47% of the participants were Jordanians, 27% were Malaysians, 11% were from Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar), 10% were from conflict zones in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen) and 5% comprised students from other nationalities. Significant differences were found between students from different backgrounds in their funding sources (Chi square = 132, P career choices (Chi square = 34, P career plans were found between dental students from variable backgrounds studying a single institution. Many of these disparities could reflect variations in socioeconomic backgrounds.
AIMS: To explore changes in students' attitudes to psychiatry and career preference for psychiatry during the course of their senior clinical years at RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus (RUMC).
METHODS: All year 3 students (n = 111) at RUMC were invited to complete the Attitudes towards Psychiatry questionnaire (ATP-30) and a separate questionnaire seeking opinions on career preferences. The questionnaires were administered at 3 points in time: in year 3 before the 8-week psychiatry posting, following completion of the posting in year 4, and at the end of year 5. Quantitative data analysis was performed using SPSS version 18, and free-text responses were thematically analysed.
RESULTS: One hundred completed questionnaires (90.1%) were returned. There was a significant improvement in students' ATP scores after their psychiatry rotation and this was sustained into year 5. Psychiatry as a career choice had highest preference levels following completion of the clerkship but declined in year 5 to below pre-clerkship preference levels. Qualitative analysis of factors influencing a career in psychiatry revealed themes of job satisfaction, lifestyle factors, perceived image of psychiatry, and self-appraisal.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that an enriched undergraduate clinical clerkship experience can help to sustain improved attitudes to psychiatry into the final medical year. However, declining interest in the specialty a career choice prior to graduation presents an enduring challenge.
METHODS: This qualitative interview study was conducted among final year pharmacy students. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling until data saturation (i.e., when additional interviews didn't lead to any new themes). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and evaluated by thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-two final year pharmacy students were interviewed. Fifteen of them preferred the government sector as their choice training, three chose the community sector, two preferred private hospitals and another two preferred the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of the students gave positive feedback towards the liberalization of PRP training sites. Most of them chose clinical pharmacy as their preferred training site despite knowing of the saturation issue in government hospitals. This was mainly due to the opportunity to gain clinical experience and knowledge from the government sector. A small number of students preferred the pharmaceutical industry based on their personal interests and opportunities for career advancement.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students generally chose their PRP training site based on personal interest, future career advancement and working environment. A better understanding of career pathways and opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry by the students is required.