STUDY QUESTION What is the cumulative incidence of live birth and mean time to pregnancy (by conception after IVF/ICSI or natural conception) in women experiencing unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF) following IVF/ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER In 118 women who had experienced RIF, the reported cumulative incidence of live birth during a maximum of 5.5 years follow-up period was 49%, with a calculated median time to pregnancy leading to live birth of 9 months after diagnosis of RIF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Current definitions of RIF include failure to achieve a pregnancy following IVF/ICSI and undergoing three or more fresh embryo transfer procedures of one or two high quality embryos or more than 10 embryos transferred in fresh or frozen cycles. The causes and optimal management of this distressing condition remain uncertain and a range of empirical and often expensive adjuvant therapies is often advocated. Little information is available regarding the long-term prognosis for achieving a pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Two hundred and twenty-three women under 39 years of age who had experienced RIF without a known cause after IVF/ICSI treatment in two tertiary referral university hospitals between January 2008 and December 2012 were invited to participate in this retrospective cohort follow up study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All eligible women were sent a letter requesting their consent to the anonymous use of their medical file data and were asked to complete a questionnaire enquiring about treatments and pregnancies subsequent to experiencing RIF. Medical files and questionnaires were examined and results were analysed to determine the subsequent cumulative incidence of live birth and time to pregnancy within a maximum 5.5 year follow-up period using Kaplan Meier analysis. Clinical predictors for achieving a live birth were investigated using a Cox hazard model. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One hundred and twenty-seven women responded (57%) and data from 118 women (53%) were available for analysis. During the maximum 5.5 year follow up period the overall cumulative incidence of live birth was 49% (95% CI 39–59%). Among women who gave birth, the calculated median time to pregnancy was 9 months after experiencing RIF, where 18% arose from natural conceptions. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Since only 57% of the eligible study cohort completed the questionnaire, the risk of response bias limits the applicability of the study findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study reports a favorable overall prognosis for achieving live birth in women who have previously experienced RIF, especially in those who continue with further IVF/ICSI treatments. However since 51% did not achieve a live birth during the follow-up period, there is a need to distinguish those most likely to benefit from further treatment. In this study, no clinical factors were found to be predictive of those achieving a subsequent live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht, in Utrecht and the Academic Medical Centre, in Amsterdam. NSM has received consultancy and speaking fees and research funding from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, Abbott, IBSA, Gedion Richter, and Clearblue. During the most recent 5-year period BCJMF has received fees or grant support from the following organizations (in alphabetic order); Actavis/Watson/Uteron, Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynecology (COGI), Dutch Heart Foundation, Dutch Medical Research Counsel (ZonMW), Euroscreen/Ogeda, Ferring, London Womens Clinic (LWC), Merck Serono, Myovant, Netherland Genomic Initiative (NGI), OvaScience, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem/Gedeon Richter/Finox, Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO), Roche, Teva, World Health Organisation (WHO). None of the authors have disclosures to make in relation to this manuscript.

European legislation obligates member states to have a full-time postgraduate GP specialty training for ≥3 years, with a minimum of 6 months spent in general practice. Across Europe, GP specialty training varies from 3 years (for example, in the UK and the Netherlands) to 6 years (Finland), with training time in general practices varying between 6 months (Austria) and 4 years (Norway). Recently, across Europe a strong movement in favour of extending the minimum duration of GP specialty training from the current 3 years to 4 or even 5 years has developed. 1,2 Supporters of this measure state that this will 'build the same level as specialty as other disciplines' and therefore strengthen GPs' standing across Europe. 3,4 This is important because a strong primary care is needed to have a high-quality healthcare system accessible for all citizens, in which GPs function as key stakeholders. 5,6 However, not every country values GPs in this way. Across Europe GPs' positions vary from being a strong gatekeeper with free access for patients to easily accessible secondary care and paid GP visits. Another argument for extending the duration is that more time spent in training will give trainees 'greater exposure to real world setting', and therefore better developed competencies important for future GPs. 2 Recently, extension of GP training programmes in Scotland and the West of Ireland reported positive results, whereby trainees from these programmes felt better prepared for independent practice. 7,8 The extended period of general practice training in particular (2 years instead of 1) was valued by the trainees. Although we recognise that becoming a GP takes time and requires the mastery of a broad range of competencies, 2,4 in this editorial we will argue that merely extending GP specialty training might not be the right measure to better prepare trainees or to enhance GPs' standing.

IntroductionSeeing and treating patients in daily practice forms the basis of general practitioner (GP) training. However, the types of patients seen by GP trainees do not always match trainees’ educational needs. Knowledge about factors that shape the mix of patient types is limited, especially with regard to the role of the professionals who work in the GP practice.AimWe investigated factors affecting the mix of patients seen by GP trainees from the perspective of professionals.Design and settingThis qualitative study involved GP trainees, GP supervisors, medical receptionists and nurse practitioners affiliated with a GP Specialty Training Institute in the Netherlands.MethodsTwelve focus groups and seven interviews with 73 participants were held. Data collection and analysis were iterative, using thematic analysis with a constant comparison methodology.ResultsThe characteristics of patients’ health problems and the bond between the doctor and patient are important determinants of GP trainees’ patient mix. Because trainees have not yet developed bonds with patients, they are less likely to see patients with complex health problems. However, trainees can deliberately influence their patient mix by paying purposeful attention to bonding with patients and by gaining professional trust through focused engagement with their colleagues.ConclusionTrainees’ patient mix is affected by various factors. Trainees and team members can take steps to ensure that this mix matches trainees’ educational needs, but their success depends on the interaction between trainees’ behaviour, the attitudes of team members and the context. The findings show how the mix of patients seen by trainees can be influenced to become more trainee centred and learning oriented.