Experiences in academic publication among ENT trainees in the UK:
results from a national survey
Abstract
Objective: To determine the number of academic papers which have been
submitted and published by ENT specialty trainees at each level of
higher surgical training. Design: A cross-sectional survey was designed
and validated according to the ‘Good Practice in Conduct of and
Reporting of Survey Research’ checklist. Settings: Voluntary completion
of a web-based questionnaire which was distributed to participants
between 11 May – 22 June 2020. Participants: All ENT higher surgical
trainees (ST3-ST8 level) in the UK. Main outcomes measured: The number
of submitted and published articles by each higher surgical trainee.
Comparisons were made between deaneries, training grades and trainees
who had achieved a higher degree. Trainees in academic training pathways
and those in less than full-time training were analysed separately.
Results: One hundred fifty-three ENT speciality trainees across the UK
took part in the survey, giving a national response rate of 46.5%.
There was a slight male preponderance in the respondents, with 85 males
and 68 females completing the survey. Across all years of training, the
mean number of first author publications was three and for non-first
author publications the mean number was two. For trainees at ST8 level,
these numbers were nine and five, respectively. Trainees undertaking a
PhD programme produced a mean number of nine first author publications
– 5.31 more than the rest (p < 0.0001). Those in academic
training pathways achieved 3.48 more publications compared to those who
were not (p = 0.092). Trainees with additional undergraduate degrees and
those in less than full-time training had an overall lower number of
first author publications compared to the general cohort. Conclusions:
ENT specialty trainees achieve a higher average number of academic
publications than is currently required in order to successfully obtain
a Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT). This is particularly the
case for trainees in an academic training programme and those with a
higher degree. It is the authors’ hope that the data from this study
will help in informing and guiding junior trainees, educational
supervisors and training programme directors when considering the level
of research engagement required for gaining a CCT.