Theories and theoretical frameworks used in general practice career choice research: a scoping review.

IF 2.9 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Faith Yong, Jordan Fox, Priya Martin, Matthew McGrail
{"title":"Theories and theoretical frameworks used in general practice career choice research: a scoping review.","authors":"Faith Yong, Jordan Fox, Priya Martin, Matthew McGrail","doi":"10.1186/s12875-026-03475-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of medical graduates choosing to specialise as a general practitioner (GP) has not kept pace with need. Understanding how GP specialisation decisions are made has never been more critical. To date, much of the literature in GP specialisation choice is pragmatic and practice-focused, less strongly underpinned by existing theories or theoretical frameworks relating to the decision-making process of medical students or junior doctors. Our aim was to scope the evidence on the use of theories and theoretical frameworks in general practice career choice selection research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was conducted and reported in accordance with JBI guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched. Only contexts where specialty decisions mostly occur after medical school graduation (e.g. Australia, United Kingdom) were considered for inclusion. Titles and abstracts of all articles were dual-screened against inclusion criteria, followed by full text review of articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, 2,396 titles and abstracts were screened followed by full-text review which identified 30 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, eight were from Australia, 20 from the UK, one from New Zealand, and one was multi-national. Most studies utilised qualitative methodology (N = 21) or mixed methods (N = 6). These draw from 15 distinct theories/frameworks, while 15 studies explained implicit theories. Twenty-two studies produced some form of theory or framework as an outcome within the study. Subsequent citation of these frameworks has generally been low. There was clear agreement that GP career decision-making was complex.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our review identified the application and production of many different frameworks relating to GP specialty decision making, both from adapting explicit theories from a range of disciplines and professions, and identification of implicit theories. Researchers undertaking future studies around general practice career decisions are encouraged to utilise and build upon existing theories and frameworks, rather than creating new ones, to avoid duplication of results.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13656456/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-026-03475-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The number of medical graduates choosing to specialise as a general practitioner (GP) has not kept pace with need. Understanding how GP specialisation decisions are made has never been more critical. To date, much of the literature in GP specialisation choice is pragmatic and practice-focused, less strongly underpinned by existing theories or theoretical frameworks relating to the decision-making process of medical students or junior doctors. Our aim was to scope the evidence on the use of theories and theoretical frameworks in general practice career choice selection research.

Methods: The review was conducted and reported in accordance with JBI guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched. Only contexts where specialty decisions mostly occur after medical school graduation (e.g. Australia, United Kingdom) were considered for inclusion. Titles and abstracts of all articles were dual-screened against inclusion criteria, followed by full text review of articles.

Results: After removing duplicates, 2,396 titles and abstracts were screened followed by full-text review which identified 30 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, eight were from Australia, 20 from the UK, one from New Zealand, and one was multi-national. Most studies utilised qualitative methodology (N = 21) or mixed methods (N = 6). These draw from 15 distinct theories/frameworks, while 15 studies explained implicit theories. Twenty-two studies produced some form of theory or framework as an outcome within the study. Subsequent citation of these frameworks has generally been low. There was clear agreement that GP career decision-making was complex.

Conclusions: Our review identified the application and production of many different frameworks relating to GP specialty decision making, both from adapting explicit theories from a range of disciplines and professions, and identification of implicit theories. Researchers undertaking future studies around general practice career decisions are encouraged to utilise and build upon existing theories and frameworks, rather than creating new ones, to avoid duplication of results.

全科医生职业选择研究中使用的理论和理论框架:范围综述。
背景:选择成为全科医生(GP)的医学毕业生的数量没有跟上需求的步伐。了解全科医生专业化决策是如何做出的从未如此重要。迄今为止,大部分关于全科医生专业选择的文献都是务实的,以实践为中心的,与医学生或初级医生的决策过程有关的现有理论或理论框架的支持力度较小。我们的目的是对在全科实践职业选择研究中使用理论和理论框架的证据进行范围分析。方法:按照JBI指南和系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)进行评价和报告。检索了PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Scopus数据库。只有在医学院毕业后做出专业决定的情况下(如澳大利亚、英国)才被纳入考虑。根据纳入标准对所有文章的标题和摘要进行双重筛选,然后对文章进行全文审查。结果:在删除重复后,筛选了2396篇标题和摘要,然后进行全文审查,确定了30篇符合纳入标准的研究。其中,8人来自澳大利亚,20人来自英国,1人来自新西兰,1人来自跨国公司。大多数研究采用定性方法(N = 21)或混合方法(N = 6)。这些研究来自15个不同的理论/框架,而15个研究解释了内隐理论。22项研究产生了某种形式的理论或框架作为研究的结果。随后对这些框架的引用通常很少。大家一致认为,GP职业生涯的决策是复杂的。结论:我们的综述确定了与全科医生专业决策相关的许多不同框架的应用和产生,包括从一系列学科和专业中采用显式理论,以及识别内隐理论。为了避免重复研究结果,鼓励研究人员利用和建立现有的理论和框架,而不是创造新的理论和框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书