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: 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.
PURPOSE: This review aimed to synthesize reliable evidence ondetermining factors among health science students' career choices to enhance policy advocacy for better health-care delivery.
METHOD: We sourced empirical studies from Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. From a total of 9,056 researcharticlesfrom 2010 to 2022, 27 studies with a total of 45,832 respondents met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: The majority of the studies were of medical students; internal medicine was the commonest choice (64.3%), with psychiatry and public health receiving lesser attention. In the four available studies of nursing students, midwifery was not chosen at all. There is a paucity of studies on this all-important concept for nursing students. The determining factors of choice of specialty were in four themes: personal, socioeconomic, professional, and educational/policy. Among the barriers to choosing particular specialties were low prestige among colleagues, stigma, long working hours, and poor public recognition.
CONCLUSION: The career choices of health science students do not reflect an adequate mix of health-care team members to meet the health-care needs of the world. Reforms of policy and educational training are needed.
METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among final year students in medical imaging programs from six institutions in Malaysia. Purposive convenience sampling has been employed. Data collection was related to students' interest in postgraduate study and possible factors that may affect students' intention to pursue postgraduate education after study degree completion. The questionnaire was a combination of a Likert Scale and open-ended question.
RESULTS: A total of 148 (female, n = 132 and male, n = 16) responses were included in the analysis. Among the participants, n = 93 (62.8 %) of students intended to pursue study. The highest choice of study was mixed mode (41.9 %) and cardiac imaging was the field of choice by the students (22.3 %). Five factors have been found to significantly correlate with the students' intention to pursue postgraduate study in medical imaging which were student attributes, being an academician, remuneration, finance, and social influences (p 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Five out of seven factors tested were found to significantly influence students' decision to pursue postgraduate education in medical imaging. Effective strategies based on the influencing factors should be strategized to encourage more students to pursue postgraduate education in medical imaging.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Implementation of effective strategies based on the influencing factors will improve access to education among radiography students, ultimately enhancing future radiographers' capability and competency.
METHODS: Ethical and institutional approval was obtained at each study location. A questionnaire was designed and distributed to final year students. Domains assessed included demographics, career plans and reasons associated. Anonymised responses were collated and evaluated. Categorical data were compared with Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 342 students in four medical schools of whom 78.6% were undergraduates. Over half (53%) were Irish, with Malaysia, Canada and the USA the next most common countries of origin. Only 18% of students intended to pursue surgery, with 60% stating they did not plan to, and 22% undecided. Of those who plan not to pursue surgery, 28% were unsure about a speciality but the most common choices were medicine (39%), general practice (16%) and paediatrics (8%). Reasons for not picking a career in surgery included long hours and the unstructured career path. Suggestions to improve uptake included earlier and more practical exposure to surgery, improved teaching/training and reduction in working hours.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study 18% of final year medical students identified surgery as their chosen career pathway. Although lifestyle factors are significant in many students' decision, perceived quality and duration of surgical training were also relevant and are modifiable factors which, if improved could increase interest in surgery as a career.
METHODS: All final-year students registered for 2013/2014 across 11 dental schools in Malaysia were invited to participate in a self-administered questionnaire (n = 530). The instrument explored short- and long-term career expectations, influences and students' background using a mix of open- and closed-ended questions. The chi-square test was used for comparison according to student and school characteristics.
RESULTS: Three-hundred and fifty-six (83%) students, across eight schools, completed the questionnaire. In the short term, undertaking specialist training (46%) was the most commonly cited career goal, and achieving financial stability (79%) was the greatest influence. In the long term, 59% planned to specialise (with a significant difference found according to ethnic group), and 67% considered working full-time, with men significantly more likely to do so than women (P = 0.036). More Malay students (90%) ranked childcare commitments as an important influence on the number of sessions they planned to work per week compared with Chinese students (75%) and Others (74%; P = 0.001). Work-life balance (95%) and high income/financial security (95%) were the main influences on respondents' long-term goals.
CONCLUSION: There was a high level of interest in specialisation and a desire to achieve financial stability and work-life balance in the group of dental students who responded to the survey. Long-term career expectations varied according to student but not according to school characteristics.