Equity in recruitment to Combined Infection Training, 2021: Diversity &amp; Inclusion considerations

Aggarwal, Dinesh; Roy-Chowdhury, Ms. Meera; Xiang, Nicola; Peacock, Prof. Sharon J.

doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.06.031

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 24 Examining combined infection training specifically, country of qualification possibly accounted for imbalances in recruitment by ethnicity. 13 Our findings, however, indicate a need to thoroughly review recruitment policies and processes from a diversity and inclusion perspective (such as bias in recruitment decisions and a lack of inclusivity in the design of recruitment processes), to ensure that they are facilitating equitable outcomes. Outside of recruitment to specialty training, unequal progression by ethnicity has been demonstrated in the NHS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…A previous descriptive analysis demonstrated that doctors from minority ethnic groups were less likely to be considered suitable for appointment to specialty training posts in the UK, but did not consider country of graduation or undertake a thorough analysis of the data 24. Examining combined infection training specifically, country of qualification possibly accounted for imbalances in recruitment by ethnicity 13. Our findings, however, indicate a need to thoroughly review recruitment policies and processes from a diversity and inclusion perspective (such as bias in recruitment decisions and a lack of inclusivity in the design of recruitment processes), to ensure that they are facilitating equitable outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A historical study from Esmail and Everington reported poorer outcomes for matched applicants to specialty medicine with Asian names compared with those with English names 10. More recent data have highlighted differences in applicants deemed appointable for specialty posts by ethnicity, but the data failed to account for the impact of country of graduation—a known additional factor in success at postgraduate examinations and recruitment 13 14…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 More recent data have highlighted differences in applicants deemed appointable for specialty posts by ethnicity, but the data failed to account for the impact of country of graduation—a known additional factor in success at postgraduate examinations and recruitment. 13 14 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Applications to medical and surgical specialist training in the UK National Health Service, 2021–2022: a cross-sectional observational study to characterise the diversity of successful applicants

Aggarwal

Roy-Chowdhury²,

Xiang

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo compare success of applicants to specialty training posts in the UK by gender, ethnicity and disability status.DesignCross-sectional observational study.SettingNational Health Service, UK.ParticipantsAll specialty training post applications to Health Education England, UK, during the 2021–2022 recruitment cycle.InterventionNil.Primary and secondary outcome measuresComparison of success at application to specialty training posts by gender, ethnicity, country of qualification (UK vs non-UK) and disability. The influence of ethnicity on success was investigated using a logistic regression model, where country of qualification was included as a covariate.Results12 419/37 971 (32.7%) of applicants to specialty training posts were successful, representing 58 specialties. The difference in percentage of successful females (6480/17 523, 37.0%) and males (5625/19 340, 29.1%) was 7.9% (95% CI 6.93% to 8.86%), in favour of females. Segregation of applications to specialties by gender was observed; surgical specialties had the highest proportion of male applicants, while obstetrics and gynaecology had the highest proportion of female applicants. The proportion of successful recruits to specialties largely reflected the number of applications. 11/15 minority ethnic groups (excluding ‘not stated’) had significantly lower adjusted ORs for success compared with white-British applicants. ‘Mixed white and black African’ (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.61, p≤0.001) were the least successful minority group in our study, while non-UK graduates had an adjusted ORs for success of 0.43 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.46, p≤0.001) compared with UK graduates. The difference in percentage of success by disabled applicants (179/464, 38.6%) and non-disabled applicants (11 940/36 418, 32.8%) was 5.79% (95% CI 1.23% to 10.4%), in favour of disabled applicants. No disabled applicants were accepted to 21/58 (36.2%) of specialties.ConclusionsDespite greater success by female applicants overall, there is an attraction issue to specialties by gender. Further, most ethnic minority groups are less successful at application when compared with white-British applicants. This requires continuous monitoring and evaluation of the reasons behind observed differences.Trial RegistrationNot applicable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%