BMC Medical Education (Nov 2022)

House officers’ specialist career choices and motivators for their choice– a sequential mixed-methods study from Malaysia

  • Anuradha Nadarajah,
  • Pathiyil Ravi Shankar,
  • Sivakumaran Jayaraman,
  • Chandrashekhar T. Sreeramareddy

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03845-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Purpose Shortage and maldistribution of medical specialists hamper healthcare quality. The specialist career choices of house officers determines the future composition of healthcare systems. We studied house officers’’ specialist career choices and motivators for their choice. Participants and methods We conducted online in-depth interviews among seven house officers using an interview guide developed based on a literature review. The transcripts were analyzed. Major themes were identified. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, and the main and sub-themes were identified as motivators for specialist career choice. An online survey was done among 185 house officers. Content validation of motivators for specialist choice was done using exploratory factor analysis. First, second and third choices for a specialist career were identified. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done to determine the socio-demographic factors and motivators associated with the first choice. Results HOs perceived that specialist training opportunities provide a wide range of clinical competencies through well-structured, comprehensive training programs under existing specialist training pathways. Main challenges were limited local specialist training opportunities and hurdles for ‘on-contract’ HO to pursue specialist training. Motivators for first-choice specialty were related to ‘work schedule’, ‘patient care characteristics’, ‘specialty characteristics’, ‘personal factors’, ‘past work experience’, ‘training factors’, and ‘career prospects.’ House officers’ first choices were specialties related to medicine (40.5%), surgery (31.5%), primary care (14.6%), and acute care (13.5%). On multivariate analysis, “younger age”, “health professional in the family”, “work schedule and personal factors”, “career prospects” and “specialty characteristics” were associated with the first choice. Conclusions Medical and surgical disciplines were the most preferred disciplines and their motivators varied by individual discipline. Overall work experiences and career prospects were the most important motivators for the first-choice specialty. The information about motivational factors is helpful to develop policies to encourage more doctors to choose specialties with a shortage of doctors and to provide career specialty guidance.

Keywords