Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Dec 21;13:171. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-171.
There has been a decline in interest in general internal medicine that has resulted in a discrepancy between internal medicine residents' choice in the R4 subspecialty match and societal need. Few studies have focused on the relative importance of personal goals and their impact on residents' choice. The purpose of this study was to assess if internal medicine residents can be grouped based on their personal goals and how each group prioritizes these goals compared to each other. A secondary objective was to explore whether we could predict a resident's desired subspecialty choice based on their constellation of personal goals.
We used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate year 1-3 internal medicine residents could be grouped based on their rankings of 36 statements (derived from our previous qualitative study). Using each groups' defining and distinguishing statements, we predicted their subspecialties of interest. We also collected the residents' first choice in the subspecialty match and used a kappa test to compare our predicted subspecialty group to the residents' self-reported first choice.
Fifty-nine internal medicine residents at the University of Alberta participated between 2009 and 2010 with 46 Q sorts suitable for analysis. The residents loaded onto four factors (groups) based on how they ranked statements. Our prediction of each groups' desired subspecialties with their defining and/or distinguishing statements are as follows: group 1 - general internal medicine (variety in practice); group 2 - gastroenterology, nephrology, and respirology (higher income); group 3 - cardiology and critical care (procedural, willing to entertain longer training); group 4 - rest of subspecialties (non-procedural, focused practice, and valuing more time for personal life). There was moderate agreement (kappa = 0.57) between our predicted desired subspecialty group and residents' self-reported first choice (p < 0.001).
This study suggests that most residents fall into four groups based on a constellation of personal goals when choosing an internal medicine subspecialty. The key goals that define and/or distinguish between these groups are breadth of practice, lifestyle, desire to do procedures, length of training, and future income potential. Using these groups, we were able to predict residents' first subspecialty group with moderate success.
对普通内科的兴趣下降导致内科住院医师在 R4 亚专业匹配中的选择与社会需求之间存在差异。很少有研究关注个人目标的相对重要性及其对住院医师选择的影响。本研究旨在评估内科住院医师是否可以根据个人目标进行分组,以及每个组如何相互比较来优先考虑这些目标。次要目的是探讨是否可以根据住院医师的个人目标组合来预测他们期望的亚专业选择。
我们使用 Q 分类法来检查 1-3 年级的内科住院医师如何根据他们对 36 个陈述的排名进行分组(这些陈述来自我们之前的定性研究)。使用每个组的定义和区分陈述,我们预测他们感兴趣的亚专业。我们还收集了住院医师在亚专业匹配中的第一选择,并使用 Kappa 检验将我们预测的亚专业组与住院医师的自我报告的第一选择进行比较。
2009 年至 2010 年间,艾伯塔大学的 59 名内科住院医师参加了这项研究,其中有 46 个 Q 分类适合分析。住院医师根据他们对陈述的排名加载到四个因素(组)上。我们使用他们的定义和/或区分陈述对每个组的期望亚专业的预测如下:组 1 - 普通内科(实践多样性);组 2 - 胃肠病学、肾脏病学和呼吸病学(更高收入);组 3 - 心脏病学和重症监护(程序、愿意接受更长时间的培训);组 4 - 其他亚专业(非程序、专注实践和更重视个人生活时间)。我们预测的理想亚专业组与住院医师自我报告的第一选择之间存在中度一致性(Kappa = 0.57)(p < 0.001)。
这项研究表明,大多数住院医师在选择内科亚专业时,会根据个人目标的组合分为四组。定义和/或区分这些组的关键目标是实践范围、生活方式、进行程序的愿望、培训时间和未来收入潜力。使用这些组,我们能够以中等成功率预测住院医师的第一亚专业组。