Effect of sex on specialty training application outcomes: a longitudinal administrative data study of UK medical graduates

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 9; no. 3; p. e025004
• Main Authors: Woolf, Katherine, Jayaweera, Hirosha, Unwin, Emily, Keshwani, Karim, Valerio, Christopher, Potts, Henry
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 05.03.2019; BMJ Publishing Group
• Subjects: Adult; Data dictionaries; Ethnicity; Female; Gender differences; Health education; Humans; Job Application; Male; Meals; Medical Education and Training; Medical schools; Medicine - organization & administration; Medicine - statistics & numerical data; Minority & ethnic groups; Pediatrics; Physicians, Women - statistics & numerical data; Professional misconduct; Sanctions; Schools, Medical - statistics & numerical data; Segregation; Specialization; Students; Students, Medical - statistics & numerical data; Systematic review; Tariffs; United Kingdom; Variables; Women; United Kingdom; United Kingdom > UK; professionalism; medical workforce; fitness to practise; academic attainment; sex differences
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025004

ObjectivesTo examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.DesignRetrospective longitudinal cohort study.SettingAdministrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.Participants10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.Primary outcome measureOdds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.ResultsAcross all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsSex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.