Psychiatric Bulletin (2006) 30: 306-308. doi: 10.1192/pb.30.8.306
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2006) 30: 306-308
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Five-year study (2000-2004) of trainees' publications in the Psychiatric Bulletin
Sanju George, Specialist Registrar in General Adult Psychiatry and
Ditesh Dhaya, Senior House Officer in Psychiatry
*Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham
B15 2QZ, e-mail:
sanju.george{at}talk21.com
Femi Oyebode, Professor of Psychiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist
Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Birmingham
Declaration of interest
S.G. was the trainee editor of Psychiatric Bulletin and is now an editorial
board member. F.O. is an editorial board member of Psychiatric Bulletin.
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
AIMS AND METHOD
We explored the contribution of trainees to the Psychiatric Bulletin by
estimating the nature and proportion of papers by trainees published during a
5-year period: 2000-2004.
RESULTS
Nearly a third (30.7%) of all papers published during the 5 years were
authored/co-authored by trainees. The predominant contribution was to
education and training papers (66% of all the papers in this section),
original papers (46%) and drug information quarterly papers (30%). The
proportions of papers by trainees remained fairly consistent across the 5
years.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Overall, the Psychiatric Bulletin appears to be
‘trainee-friendly’ and this should encourage trainees to submit
papers to the Bulletin.
|
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Participation in research is crucial to meeting the higher specialist
training requirements and furthering one's career prospects (progression from
senior house officer (SHO) to specialist registrar (SpR) and from SpR to
consultant). Reasons for doing research vary. Williams & Curran
(1998), in a study that
explored why SpRs do research, identified the following reasons: own interest
(33.3%), curriculum vitae purposes (29.8%) and to advance career (22.8%). A
direct and observable outcome measure or evidence of involvement in research
is publication in a scientific journal. In our view, there is a perception,
among trainees and trainers in the UK, that it is relatively easy for trainees
to have their papers accepted for publication in the Psychiatric Bulletin
compared with other journals. However, the contribution of trainees to the
Bulletin has not been formally studied. The aim of this study was to estimate
the proportion and nature of papers published by trainees in the Psychiatric
Bulletin in the 5-year period: 2000–2004.
|
|
Method
|
|---|
We looked at all papers published in the Psychiatric Bulletin over a 5-year
period (2000-2004). Publications were categorised into the following sections:
editorials, opinion and debate, original papers, special articles, education
and training, drug information quarterly, correspondence and book reviews. The
total number of publications in each category and those that had a trainee/s
as an author/s was noted separately and collectively for the 5 years. For the
purposes of this study, SpRs, SHOs and medical students were considered as
trainees. Further information on trainee authors was collected regarding their
grade of training (SHO/SpR), level of authorship (first, second or third
author) and the geographical region of training within the UK. Any paper that
had multiple trainee authors was ‘counted’ only once and those
that did not specify the authors' affiliations or training grade were excluded
from the study. Data were analysed with the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences version 11.0.
|
|
Results
|
|---|
Of the 691 papers (excluding correspondence and book reviews) included in
the study, 212 were by trainees (30.7%). A detailed analysis of the proportion
of papers by trainees according to category and year is given in
Table 1. Considerably higher
proportions of original papers (45.9%), education & training papers (66%)
and drug information quarterly papers (30%) were by trainees compared with
special articles (19.8%), opinion & debate papers (10.8%) and editorials
(6.3%).
There did not appear to be considerable variation in the proportions of
papers by trainees across the 5 years. This was true for original papers
(range 42.3-53.2%), education & training papers (range 60-71.4%) and
correspondence (range 21.1-40.3%), three of the categories with the most
trainee authorship. In contrast, 31% of the special articles in 2000 were by
trainees, whereas this dropped to 16% in 2004
(Fig. 1).
Training grade and authorship
Of the 212 papers by trainees (excluding correspondence and book reviews),
165 (77.8%) were by SpRs, 45 (21.2%) were by SHOs and 10 (4.7%) were by
medical students. Of these 212 papers, 149 (70.3%) had trainees as first
authors; SpRs were first authors more often when involved in authorship
(124/165, 75.2%) and less frequently as second authors (29/165, 17.5%) or
third authors (12/165, 7.3%). In contrast, SHOs were almost as likely to be
the first authors (21/45, 46.7%) as second authors (19/45, 42.2%). Four papers
had medical students as first authors and six papers as second authors.
Types of original studies and region of training
Overall, trainees published 124 original papers in the 5-year period.
Sixty-three (50.8%) of these were questionnaire surveys, 18 (14.5%) were case
record-based studies, 17 (13.7%) were audits and 5 were other types of
studies. Interestingly, only 21 of the 124 studies (16.9%) involved direct
patient contact.
Papers that had trainees as first authors were further analysed to identify
the trainees' geographical region of training. The majority of the trainees
were training in London (42/149, 28.2%). The only other regions of the UK from
where there were 5 or more papers were Birmingham (12), Edinburgh (7),
Manchester (5), Bristol (5) and Nottingham (5). Other parts of the UK were
more or less equally represented.
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Overall, the results indicate that trainees contribute substantially to the
Psychiatric Bulletin. Nearly one-third (30.7%) of all papers were by trainees,
which included 66% of education & training papers, 45.9% of original
papers and 19.8% of special articles. However, trainees contributed to only
6.3% (5 out of 79) of the editorials and 10.8% (12 out of 111) of the opinion
& debate papers. This is understandable as trainees are unlikely to have
well-formed opinion on policy and practice issues, given their limited
experience in psychiatry. Nevertheless, it may be beneficial for trainees to
be joint authors as this will add to their experience. Of all papers with
trainee authors, 70.3% had trainees as first authors. Specialist registrars
were the first authors in over three-quarters (75.2%) of papers by trainees,
and SHOs accounted for the rest. It is also noteworthy that the proportion of
papers by trainees remained fairly consistent across the 5-year study
period.
Two other interesting results warrant special mention. First, the number of
papers by trainees in London (42/149,28.2%) when the trainee was first author
was disproportionately large. This could either be because of the very large
number of trainees in these training schemes or the greater emphasis and
opportunities given to these trainees for involvement in research. Second, the
type of original research conducted by trainees was noteworthy. The majority
of the studies (83%) involved no direct patient contact: questionnaire
surveys, audits and case note-based studies predominated. This probably is a
reflection of the practical difficulties that trainees encounter in getting
involved in more ‘original’ research, such as lack of protected
time for research, changing jobs every 6-12 months, inadequate support from
trainers and bureaucracy of ethics applications, to list just a few.
Out of the 124 original studies, 17 (13.7%) were audits. Audit is regarded
as the cornerstone of clinical governance and, given its emphasis in the
record of in-training assessment, it is surprising that relatively few audit
papers were published by trainees. There could be two reasons: audits tend to
be conducted ‘centrally’ within trusts (by the research and
development department or the clinical governance team) and hence trainee
input is limited; second, the Psychiatric Bulletin in recent years has
increased its quality threshold for publication, and a full audit cycle is
required before such papers can be accepted for publication. The length of
training posts makes it unlikely that trainees will be involved in the full
cycle.
Specialist registrars were first authors on only 124 papers over the 5-year
study period (approximately 25 papers per annum). There are over 1500 SpRs in
psychiatry in the UK, and even if only some contributed to the Bulletin, this
number is still very small. This calls into question the issue of proper
utilisation of the ‘research day’ by SpRs. Although most SpRs
vehemently argue for its continuation
(Vassilas et al, 2002), it is
probably time to re-evaluate its usefulness and consider alternatives.
Limitations
This study had two important limitations. First, the study period of 5
years is relatively short. However, prior to 1999 the categories in the
Psychiatric Bulletin under which papers were published were different from the
current categories. Hence, inclusion of those papers would have rendered
comparisons invalid. Second, although this study demonstrates that trainees
contribute substantially to the Bulletin, it does not prove/disprove a
possible bias against papers by trainees. There is no reason to suspect that
this is the case and exploration of this methodologically complex issue was
beyond the remit of this study.
|
|
Conclusion
|
|---|
In the light of the findings of this study, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the Bulletin is indeed ‘trainee-friendly’. The inclusion of a
‘trainees section’ in the Psychiatric Bulletin (as existed prior
to 1999) might encourage trainees to publish more papers.
|
|
References
|
|---|
VASSILAS, C.,TADROS, G. & DAY, E. (2002) The
research day: a suitable case for treatment? Psychiatric
Bulletin, 26, 313
-314.[Abstract/Free Full Text]WILLIAMS, C. J. & CURRAN, S. (1998) Research by
senior registrars in psychiatry. Psychiatric Bulletin,
22, 102
-104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
P. Casey
A new editor arrives
Psychiatr. Bull.,
January 1, 2008;
32(1):
1 - 1.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
eLetters:
Read all eLetters
- The place of research in psychiatric training
- Andy R Bickle
- PB Online, 9 Aug 2006
[Full text]
Top
Abstract
Introduction
, Special
articles; 
, correspondence;
, original papers;
, education &
training.