BJGP Interviews

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Eliza Hutchinson, a dermatology registrar and academic clinical fellow based at the Centre for Applied Excellence in Skin and Allergy Research at the University of Bristol.
Title of paper: Eczema, acne, and psoriasis in people with skin of colour: a qualitative UK-based study
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0720
This study is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to explore the experiences of living with an inflammatory dermatosis specifically in people with skin of colour. We generated eight themes important to participants: delayed or missed diagnosis; preferences regarding healthcare professionals; lack of online information and social media use; misunderstandings in cultural communities; concerns about treatment and lack of research; complementary medicine use; experiences and impact of dyspigmentation; and challenges with structural racism. These findings offer insight into the complex experiences and challenges faced by UK adults with skin of colour living with eczema, acne, and psoriasis. Our practical points for primary care clinicians are a step towards facilitating mutual understanding and improving care for people with skin of colour.

Transcript
This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.

Speaker A
00:00:00.560 - 00:00:53.150
Hi and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the BJGP. In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Eliza Hutchinson.

Eliza is a dermatology registrar and an academic clinical fellow and she's based at the Centre for Applied Excellence in Skin and Skin Allergy Research at the University of Bristol. We're here to talk about the paper she's just published in the bjgp and the paper is titled Eczema Acne and Psoriasis in People with Skin of Color.

A Qualitative UK based Study. So, Eliza, it's lovely to meet you and thanks again for joining us to talk about this paper.

But before we talk about the paper itself, I'm just wondering what made you specifically interested in researching skin conditions in skin of color?

Speaker B
00:00:53.550 - 00:01:34.700
Yeah, thank you so much for having me.

So I think people with skin of color have been and still are massively underrepresented in kind of medical curricula, learning resources, clinical trials. And I certainly remember when I was at medical school, I don't think I had any teaching on diverse skin tones at all.

And so it was as I sort of learned more dermatology, I just became very aware that they are so underrepresented. And I think earlier work in this area, I really tried to improve education for medical students and healthcare professionals around skin of color.

That was kind of my starting point.

And then I realised actually there's very little, if anything actually on the experiences of people with skin of colour, which is kind of what led me to this project.

Speaker A
00:01:35.820 - 00:01:38.380
And you work in dermatology, is that right?

Speaker B
00:01:38.460 - 00:01:42.300
Yes, yes, I'm a dermatology registrar based in the Bristol Bath area.

Speaker A
00:01:42.540 - 00:02:06.890
Great. So it's wonderful to have your expertise in this especially.

And we may get into this sort of about sort of your perspective from secondary care as well, looking back into general practice as well. But this paper focuses on eczema, acne and psoriasis and these are conditions that we see a lot as gps.

So why did you feel that this was an important area to look at for people with skin of colour?

Speaker B
00:02:07.290 - 00:02:41.470
Yes, I mean, as you said, we know that skin conditions are super common.

They make up over 14% of GP consultations and eczema, acne and psoriasis are some of the most common inflammatory skin conditions we see and we know that they have a significant burden on everyone that experiences them.

But I think particularly in people with skin of colour, we already know that these people experience kind of increasing things like Dispigmentation, so skin tone getting lighter or darker from their skin condition. And yeah, I think I just wanted to focus on some of the more common conditions that are seen kind of day to day in primary care.

Speaker A
00:02:42.110 - 00:02:54.890
And this was a qualitative study and you emphasized that you really wanted to understand the experiences of people here. So talk us through a bit what you did. You spoke to people who had these conditions and had skin of colour?

Speaker B
00:02:55.050 - 00:03:26.060
Yes. So we recruited using online methods for a couple of reasons, but really wanted to get kind of diverse range of experiences from across the uk.

So we started off with an online survey and that was open to people of all skin tones. And we have written this up as a separate paper which should be out hopefully in the next few months.

But based on these responses, we then kind of purposefully recruited people with skin of color to take part in an online one to one interview. And so we spoke to 20 different people with skin of colour as part of this.

Speaker A
00:03:26.460 - 00:03:40.300
And I think one of the really interesting things that came out and is running as a strong theme through the paper is that skin conditions can present really differently in skin of colour. Can you explain a bit about what that means in practice as well?

Speaker B
00:03:40.700 - 00:04:49.210
Yeah. So we know that skin conditions can look and behave very differently in people with skin of colour compared to white skin.

So for example, eczema is typically in a kind of flexural distribution in people with white skin, so like in the elbow creases behind the knees.

But in people with skin of colour it might be more likely to be on the extensor surfaces, it might be in a sort of discoid type pattern, so kind of well defined round patches or sort of a follicular pattern is another one we see. So if you look at medical textbooks and what we're taught at medical school, we just don't see pictures of these presentations.

And I think another big thing is obviously redness is much less obvious in skin of colour. So that's typically what we would associate with skin inflammation is redness and it is much less obvious.

And instead in darker skin tones it might look kind of purpley. Brownie might not be as obvious. And certainly in the interviews we found that patients were aware of this as well.

So they were looking at their own skin and not picking up that it was kind of actively inflamed. They didn't know what it was and they'd go and see a GP or another healthcare professional in primary care and they also wouldn't know.

And then it's just kind of leading to Delayed diagnosis, misdiagnoses.

Speaker A
00:04:50.140 - 00:05:16.780
Yeah, And I think that's certainly something. So the people you spoke to described these delays in diagnosis and also this uncertainty from clinicians.

And I do wonder if that is reflected in what we learn and what the wider public understand is what inflammation might look like as well. So I wonder what really stood out to you from these experiences.

So how did people and clinicians sort of navigate those delays and uncertainty as well?

Speaker B
00:05:17.320 - 00:05:44.760
What was quite shocking was in terms of the misdiagnosis a lot of the time, infection and infestation.

So, for example, scabies was a big one that people were misdiagnosed with, and that in some circumstances did lead to kind of stigmatisation, psychological distress, embarrassment, and then people were more afraid to seek help. Further delays in diagnosis. Yeah, I think that was the thing that struck me the most in terms of this problem.

Speaker A
00:05:45.240 - 00:06:00.040
And you've mentioned this, you talked about dyspigmentation, and that came through as well very strongly in the interviews. And I think that's probably a problem that's specific to skin of color as well.

And can you talk through why that came up as such an important issue for patients in this study?

Speaker B
00:06:00.760 - 00:06:46.890
Yeah, of course. So I think we already know that dyspigmentation.

So skin tone usually getting darker, but sometimes lighter as a result of skin inflammation, we know that it is more common in darker skin tones just because they've got more melanin there to start with. But the thing that struck me in these interviews was just the profound impact that this can have on patients.

So embarrassment, isolation, body dysmorphia. There's a lot of misunderstanding as well, kind of within certain communities about what causes it.

And some people experience negative comments from within their own community, from friends and family, which really exacerbated that kind of psychosocial impact even more. And obviously, skin tone is massively tied into kind of identity, and the impact on people's wellbeing was just. Yeah, it was huge.

Speaker A
00:06:47.690 - 00:06:58.490
And coming from a general practice perspective, it sometimes feels like the treatment options for dyspigmentation are really...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Tori Ford, a qualitative researcher based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.
Title of papers: ‘Accumulative Experiences: Navigating Healthcare for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Thrush from Patient and Clinician Perspectives’ and ‘It’s not just thrush, it’s recurrent thrush’: Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosing Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis’.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0437 and https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0531
Transcript
This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.
Speaker A
00:00:01.280 - 00:01:15.200
Hi, and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the associate editors of the journal. Thanks again for listening to this podcast today.

In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Tori Ford, who is a qualitative researcher based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford. We're going to talk today about two linked papers that she and her team have published here in the bjgp.

The first one is titled Accumulative Navigating Healthcare for Recurrent Vulvovaginal Thrush from Patient and Clinician Perspectives. And the second paper is it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Diagnosing Recurrent Vulva Vaginal Candidiasis. So, Tori, thanks very much for joining us here today.

And this might come from a slightly unscientific perspective, but my feeling is that I'm seeing a lot more recurrent thrush in practice. And we know that it's incredibly common. I think, despite that, it's not something we hear discussed very often in primary care research.

So my first question is, what made you want to study it?

Speaker B
00:01:15.520 - 00:01:54.060
So, like you say, recurrent thrush is an increasingly common condition. We know that 1.2 million women in the UK live with it, 6% of people globally, and I just happen to have been one of them.

So my paper came out of lived experience of living with recurrent thrush over many years and having a diagnostic journey of, you know, seeing different healthcare professionals looking for answers. And like you say, those feelings of shame and stigma that keep you feeling alone were all too familiar for me.

So that's what actually led me into starting my PhD, looking at recurrent thrush and then wanting to hear other patient experiences as well.

Speaker A
00:01:54.460 - 00:02:22.220
And we're looking at two of your papers here that were published in the bjgp, and they're both looking at the patient and the clinician perspective.

And one thing that comes through really strongly in both papers is that recurrent thrush is often treated as if it's just repeated acute episodes rather than a condition in its own right. Why do you think that that distinction matters to patients and probably to clinicians as well, or should do?

Speaker B
00:02:22.380 - 00:03:55.420
I think when we hear about thrush, it's often something that's seen as trivial or mundane, and that's often because it's through this lens of acute, transient, episodic, episod, and most of the time it is right. 75% Of people with Vaginas will have thrush at some point in their life.

It's usually self managed over the counter with pharmacy care and symptoms resolved within a few days.

But where recurrent thrush differs is when those symptoms keep coming back so that itching, burning pain and irritation becomes sometimes cyclical, sometimes repetitive. And I spoke to three or two patients who all had different durations of heat know, happening every two weeks, every month.

And what they often found was because they were accessing fragmented care.

So, you know, going to the pharmacy, sometimes going to the gp, sometimes maybe seeing sexual health, it was often seen as again, that mundane, one off, trivial case. And it was really hard to trace those patterns across care, especially due to a lack of continuity. Right.

If you're trying to track a pattern but nobody is following you up, it's really difficult to, to capture those. So I think it's a few layers of one.

I explore how these sort of social dimensions keep it seen as something maybe less long term, but then also in the ways that sort of care was fragmented made it harder for those patterns to be picked up and then to transition the care moving away from, you know, acute one off prescriptions of an antifungal medication to something that required repeat, repetitive, enduring, you know, testing, treatment, retesting of treatments.

Speaker A
00:03:56.060 - 00:04:09.970
Absolutely. And I think what's interesting is that your papers describe recurrent thrush as something that's accumulative and cyclical over time.

And you mentioned that it's not just these sort of one off episodes. Can you explain what patients meant by that?

Speaker B
00:04:10.210 - 00:05:13.850
Yeah.

So often, I think when we talk about healthcare, journeys are presented in a way that's quite linear and straightforward that, you know, you see a healthcare professional, you get treatment, you go home, you start to feel better. But with recurrence, something interesting happens where people aren't, you know, returning to the start.

It's not that you go back to a blank page and then restart your healthcare journey every time you're carrying with you everything, everything that's amassed through healthcare encounters, what you've seen online, what you discuss with friends, and that is all carrying through to those consultations.

And I think what was really important there was acknowledging that for many people there was a lot to unpack there and often they felt that it wasn't being acknowledged in those clinical spaces. It was seen as, oh, it's just thrush. And that's why in one of the papers the title is, it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.

And that's a quote from One of the participants who was speaking about the importance of labeling and distinguishing this condition, especially in terms of the impacts it had on people's lives and also the approaches and pathways that would be needed to properly treat it.

Speaker A
00:05:14.330 - 00:05:32.570
And this is an issue that we see across clinical care and women's healthcare. But a lot of participants described feeling dismissed or not listened to.

And I wanted to just get your perspective from your wider sort of work in this area is how much of that reflected wider issues in women's health care, do you think?

Speaker B
00:05:33.170 - 00:06:46.980
Yeah, I mean, we know there's increasing conversations, right, with the women's health strategy, with the Cumberlage report, about how people's pain is often dismissed based on their gender. And that definitely came across in the studies. But I think what was interesting was that both patients and clinicians were aware of this.

And something that is quite interesting was in the diagnostic paper, we look at sort of those moments where there were sort of miscommunication or differing expectations between patients and clinicians, clinicians, where clinicians were, you know, operating on a standard guideline that requires two swabs, two positive swabs for a thrush within a year to diagnose recurrent thrush.

But when that wasn't communicated to the patient, of being told we need to accumulate these number of swabs, what the patients thought was happening was, oh, they're swabbing me again, they're not listening to me, they don't believe me.

So it was interesting where the dismissal was often in those moments of, you know, it wasn't healthcare professionals saying, this isn't important, or please don't come see me about this. It was really in those sort of small details where patients were operating on one framework and clinicians on another.

And there were these gaps in communication. And that's why our papers seek to address some of those gaps with some recommendations as well.

Speaker A
00:06:47.620 - 00:07:04.640
Yeah, and as you mentioned, one of the papers is called it's not just thrush, it's recurrent thrush.

And I wonder what you felt were the key challenges around actually recognizing recurrence in primary care, as opposed to it just being a, a one off episode.

Speaker B
00:07:04.720 - 00:09:30.220
There's multiple layers to this, I think, in terms of the. The papers are sort of split in terms of the diagnostic journey and then the healthcare journey.

But that's sort of an artificial split in some ways, because what we saw a lot was, you know, patients trying to seek out continuity of care to get someone to notice the pattern that they were starting to see and assign a label to it and we saw some hesitancy with this in clinicians who said, you know, I'm not going to use the term recurrence because that sounds like it's something serious or sounds like it's chronic. And they saw that being helpful.

But then for patients they found that really challenging because they said, you know, they just see it as thrush, they just see it as a one off case, they're not recognizing it when often...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Charlotte Morris, a GP and academic based at the University of Manchester.
Title of paper: Experiences of primary care for people with dementia from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas: a qualitative study
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0407
Existing national guidance recommends primary care-led dementia health care, but little is known about the experience of this for people living in socioeconomically deprived areas. This study highlights that people with dementia, and their carers, in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas want to maintain identity and understand their decline. Support from healthcare services often diminishes over time, with difficulties accessing and navigating healthcare systems when needed. There was uncertainty about primary care’s role in dementia health care. Clearer communication and proactive support from primary care may improve experiences for these patients.

Transcript
This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.

Speaker A
00:00:00.320 - 00:00:32.850
Hello and welcome to BJ GP Interviews. I'm Ewan Lawson and I'm the editor of the BJ gp. Thanks for listening to the podcast today. In this episode, we are speaking to Charlotte Morris.

Charlotte is a GP and doctoral research fellow at the University of Manchester and we have recently published her paper, Experiences of Primary Care for People with Dementia from Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Areas A Qualitative Study.

So, Charlotte, first of all, what I'd like to ask you is how did you come to focus on people with dementia in deprived areas specifically, and what surprised you most in the interviews?

Speaker B
00:00:33.170 - 00:02:03.470
Thanks, Ewan. Thanks so much to you and the BJGP for inviting me to do the podcast and publishing the paper.

So, I guess my interest in people with dementia started when I finished my foundation training and I did a clinical fellowship year in London where I worked on a ward with people with dementia specifically. And at that time I wanted to be a care of the elderly doctor.

But I was struck by how many people kept coming in and out of hospital with dementia regularly. We'd spend ages trying to get them home. They go home for maybe one or two days and then sadly come back on this cycle.

And I think in reality, a lot of those people would probably have been better at home, even if that shortened their lives very sadly.

And it made me realise I wanted to work in the community with people with dementia, trying to improve healthcare in terms of advanced care planning and kind of planning for progression. So that's where my interest in dementia came in.

And I work in a practice in a relatively deprived area of Greater Manchester, and I always had an interest in health equity for kind of various reasons and health equity in terms of various lenses as well.

So when I was designing my PhD project, I decided to kind of focus on both aspects, so health inequalities in terms of deprivation and primary care for people with dementia.

Speaker A
00:02:03.870 - 00:02:08.270
I mean, I know we're going to touch another on some other stuff, but. Yeah. What surprised you most in the interviews?

Speaker B
00:02:09.390 - 00:02:47.530
I think in terms of what surprised me most in the interviews, I think I was actually struck by how much people wanted more health care from their primary care teams. It's not like they felt they were getting the best care or they were really kind of thrilled with what they were getting in lot of times.

But they were actually very trusting of their primary care teams and they really, really wanted more of that health care, which kind of struck me, really.

And I actually found it kind of quite touching and humbling, as a practicing GP myself, to know that we were really valued and that the care that we provide, people tend to want more of it rather than less.

Speaker A
00:02:47.610 - 00:03:21.390
Yeah, so that leads in nicely, because I wanted to ask you about one of the themes in your paper, which was the kind of proactive continuity.

And several of your participants described your wanting their GP to take the initiative, you know, to call them, to know them, so just to anchor their sense of self while the dementia progresses. There was a one man who had Alzheimer's who named it Ali. Was a kind of a. Was a striking example. You know, what, what kind of sense?

What does that tell us about what primary care needs to be doing? I mean, you mentioned there about how much it was appreciated, but what kind of. What do you think they can do more of?

Speaker B
00:03:22.000 - 00:04:42.080
Yeah, I think that kind of theme of proactive continuity splits into two, really. So I think the idea of being proactive is really important and people wanted their GPs not only to know them, but to actively contact them.

Sorry, I mean, not just their gps, actually their whole primary care team recognising that we all work together in our practices as well as that proactivity.

They wanted somebody who knew them, knew their family, knew their kind of history, knew the kind of outside of their life, rather than just their medical condition or their dementia. And that was really striking and came through kind of very strongly from most people who were interviewed, really.

And I interviewed people with dementia and carers and from both sides. That idea of being known by their primary care team did come through very strongly.

And I think for me as the interviewer and for me as a practicing gp, I also really like that side.

You know, knowing our patients, knowing that person, and being there for the kind of entire journey of a diagnosis to dementia all the way through to that progressing. It's a real privilege and I think it's something really precious for us as, as primary care teams, that continuity.

Speaker A
00:04:42.240 - 00:05:02.930
There was a bit of a gap. There wasn't. There's this kind of, oh, you know, there's potential gap in that.

And you mentioned this in the paper about the falling away support, that sometimes participants went to the memory clinic, then they were discharged, and then they felt a little bit like they, you know, they weren't picked up necessarily. I wondered if you could tell us a little bit more how that showed up in your interviews.

Speaker B
00:05:03.570 - 00:06:27.830
Yeah, yeah, for sure. So I guess everybody, everyone did describe a kind of different journey.

And I don't want to just generalize, but the sentiment or the feeling I got from most people was that there was concern around a possible diagnosis, a kind of flurry of activity around when the diagnosis was made, referral to memory clinic, lots of calls.

Somebody described a mind boggling array of things being offered around that time of diagnosis and then after that things seeming to kind of fall away. So somebody described the specialist dropped them and they were seen by memory clinic, started on medication and then just left back to the gp.

So that idea of kind of there being a flurry of activity and then things gradually dropping away and that being a paradox because actually people felt that their needs generally increased as time went on. So that was very interesting really. And I've also done.

It's kind of not a published paper yet and it's still being worked up, but I've done some interviews with primary care providers as well and that seemed to kind of come through as well from them and that there is a flurry of activity around one point around diagnosis. But then as time goes on do things do seem to kind of drop off and change. So it's perhaps felt from both sides as well.

Speaker A
00:06:27.830 - 00:07:03.200
Yeah. Let's talk a little bit about when sometimes it doesn't happen so much or people who knew the system.

And there was definitely an interesting rather novel finding that came out and I guess it's something we might be aware of, but I haven't seen too many papers that have highlighted it, that if there was someone in the family who knew the system, that was often perceived as crucial and it sort of implies a system rewards social capital or maybe it's just very specific to medical systems. But I wondered if you could, you know, how worried should we be about that? What can primary care do to address it or to flatten those kind of.

Those kind of flatten it out. If there is a. If it is an inequality.

Speaker B
00:07:04.000 - 00:08:54.200
Yeah, I think a great question and I also thought this was one of the most interesting themes to come out of the paper actually.

So just to kind of describe it, a lot of people described how if they had a family member or a friend who knew a little bit about the healthcare system, so if they'd worked in research or if they'd worked in social care, they would be called upon to kind of navigate this complexity of the system and it kind of came through that they would know who to contact, know how much to push, know what strings to pull to get somebody seen. And that insider knowledge, how we termed it, seemed crucial in kind of getting things done.

And, and that was described in detail by one...

Today, we’re speaking to Catharina Savelkoul, a DPhil student in Health Economics based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.
Title of paper: Factors Influencing UK Medical Students’ Choice of General Practice: A Systematic Review
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0226
The UK faces a projected shortage of approximately 15,000 GPs by 2036/37, with a declining proportion of UK medical graduates pursuing general practice. Previous research has identified various contributing factors but lacked a contemporary synthesis within a coherent theoretical framework. This systematic review examines factors influencing UK medical students' career decisions, finding three critical influences: curricula that inadequately represents general practice, a persistent negative hidden curriculum, and the impact of clinical placement quality. Our revised Bland-Meurer model incorporates these findings, providing a comprehensive framework to improve GP recruitment. This systematic review identifies the factors that shape UK medical students’ intentions toward general practice.
Transcript
This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.
Speaker A
00:00:01.120 - 00:00:59.530
Hi and welcome to BJJP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan, one of the associate editors of the bjjp. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.

In today's episode, we're speaking to Katharina Savalcool. Katharina is a DPHIL student in Health Economics based at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.

We're here today to talk about the paper she's recently published in the BJJP titled Factors Influencing UK Medical Students Choice of General A Systematic Review. So, hi Katharine, it's lovely to meet you and to talk about your work.

This is a super interesting area to study because we know that there is a push to increase the number of GPs in practice and I guess that does really start from medical school and people's intentions there. But just to start off, could you talk us through why you decided to do this work and what were you aiming to look at here?

Speaker B
00:01:00.050 - 00:03:17.090
Yeah, of course.

So the goal of this piece of research, of the systematic review was to synthesize the empirical evidence on the factors that influence medical students, GP, career intention. Because we know that the general practice is what makes the NHS functions.

It handles over 300 million consultations annually, manages the long term, most long term conditions, issues over a billion prescriptions per year. And we also know that healthcare systems with a strong, with strong primary care achieve like, better population health in general.

But at the same time, right now the projected shortages for the UK are approximately 15,000 GPs by 2036, which is of course a large number and shows like a workforce crisis. And then if we look at the policy response to this, they've been like quite ambitious but also largely unsuccessful.

So for instance, Health Education England mandated that 50% of all new medical graduates should enter general practice. And this target has never been met. The same goes for the NHS long term workforce plan to increase GP training places by 50% to 6,000 places in 2031.

And the interesting part about this is that the policy responses are all about setting this goal. Right?

It's about, you know, we're shifting, we're shifting care to the community, we're expanding training places, more medical students should become a gp. But that's all. Yeah, setting like these, these, these strategies, but at the end it almost seems like the, we're achieving the reverse.

So that, that kind of brought me to the question of if we want to, you know, make sure that we have a healthy primary care workforce, that the general practice avoids this large crisis in the future, then maybe Instead of setting these ambitious goals, we should look into the question of what draws medical students to the general practice and also what are some of the reasons why they might not become a gp?

And I think if we zoom into those factors at medical school, during medical education, you get a lot more interesting insights that can actually inform more effective policy. I think that's the kind of. That was the reason I conducted this systematic review.

Speaker A
00:03:17.970 - 00:03:42.850
That's a great summary of what's been going on with GP recruitment in the past little while in terms of policy and the push to increase the number of gps. And this was, as you mentioned, a systematic review that followed pretty conventional review processes.

But I wonder if you could tell us a bit about this bland mirror model. It's a framework used in terms of organizing the results and how this informed how you structured the results.

Speaker B
00:03:43.990 - 00:04:47.410
Yeah, I think it's for this specific research question, looking into factors that influence decision making.

I decided to look up different theoretical frameworks in order to understand this, because decision making at the end of the days is, of course, something that's influenced by many things at the same time.

This model specifically, which was, I think first published in 1995, helped a lot with like, systematically categorizing the findings because it identified three principal domains. One is the student characteristics, such as, like, personal values, maybe personality traits. The second one is the specialty characteristics.

So what is the. What are the professional opportunities? And the third one is, like, the influences during medical school.

And I think if those are the three kind of domains we saw in this across these, like, 30 years of research, and I think it was the most useful way to kind of theorize these factors.

Speaker A
00:04:48.210 - 00:05:01.970
Great.

So I guess just talk us through what you found, and I suppose it might be helpful to just talk through the different aspects of that model you've just described. So what were the sort of student characteristics that you found in the literature that influenced and informed specialty choice?

Speaker B
00:05:02.640 - 00:06:37.050
Yeah, so I think the findings from this came from different types of studies.

I think the largest ones were the ones that used a data set called UK met, which kind of has the data on all UK medical students in such demographic variables, but also more information about their educational performance in medical school.

And I think these studies showed us like, the kind of the social, demographic, individual characteristics that are associated with a higher likelihood of pursuing a career in a general practice. And then there's these smaller studies which kind of like looked at personal preferences and personality traits.

And I think that that's another really interesting question. Right. Because about this, like, specialty choice and Kind of individual preferences, personality traits.

A lot of international research is talking about altruism or do people who enjoy social contact more, are they more likely to become gps?

And I think this type of research is quite undeveloped in terms of the UK literature, but it was still interesting to look at it and compare it to different studies. And I think for the demographic factors we saw specifically that female students were more likely to choose gender practice graduates on entry.

So age was another one we saw. Yeah, so there's like these different kind of demographic factors or personality traits that seem to predispose you to career in a general practice.

Speaker A
00:06:37.290 - 00:06:51.930
And what about the characteristics of the specialty itself or working in general practice specifically that drew some medical students to think about it. So these are potentially medical students looking at gps and thinking, oh, I want that lifestyle or I don't or I want that work. Really? Yeah.

Speaker B
00:06:52.150 - 00:07:48.350
On this question, first of all, a lot has changed recently.

So I think work life balance was something that was mentioned in like the earlier studies, but right now it has changed so much that that's almost like not something we can, yeah, we can use anymore.

But another interesting one, and I think one that we should really take seriously, is that a lot of one of the things that draws students to the general practice is the like, long term patient relationships. So continuity of care.

And of course right now with the landscape changing and specifically like the prioritization of access over continuity of care, it might be important to kind of, you know, reconsider those changes in light of the fact that a lot of medical students decide on a career in a general practice because of this like continuity of care aspect that's so unique to primary care. So I think that's another really important one.

Speaker A
00:07:48.990 - 00:08:13.560
Yeah, I can definitely relate to that.

I think one of the reasons I figured out that general practice was for me was that when I was working in A E, I would flag all the patients I'd seen and clarked in and then wanted to know what happened in their...

Today, we’re going to back at the recent BJGP Research Conference, which was held just last week on the 20st of March 2025 in Bristol.
Transcript
This transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.

Speaker A
00:00:00.960 - 00:00:39.550
Hello and welcome to this BJGP podcast. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate Editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening today.

In today's episode we're going to look back at the recent BJGP Research Conference which we held just last week on 20th March in Bristol. It was absolutely brilliant to welcome the BJGP team and people who attended to the Southwest.

And in today's episode I'm just going to talk about some the highlights and really focus on what the conference is about and maybe have a chat about how to get involved in the future. But first, here's a welcome to the conference from our Editor in Chief, Ewan Lawson.

Speaker B
00:00:40.270 - 00:01:16.520
My name's Ewan Lawson, I'm editor of the bjgp. So that means basically I'm the one person that the Journal would probably run without and everyone else does all the work.

But I do have to stand up here and say hello to you and I want to offer you the warmest of welcomes to the conference. Been running this for a few years and it's always really nice to get together and just try to help each other, you know, get involved.

It's not in a very scholarly way, you know, whether you're involved in research or whether you're interested in putting research into practice. We think we can offer you quite a lot more than just the fact that we publish research at BJGP and BJGP Open. So I hope you have a fantastic day.

Speaker A
00:01:17.320 - 00:03:26.850
So this was the seventh run of the BJGP Research Conference and this year we had a particular focus on a few different areas.

We took a bit of a deep dive into patient involvement, new and emerging research in general practice, general practice policy and how to get research into impact. And this year, as always, quite a bit around writing and also public speaking in academia.

The conference kicked off this year with an absolutely brilliant talk by Professor Martin Marshall, who some of you may know as the Chair of the Nuffield Trust. But he's also Emeritus professor of Healthcare Improvement at UCS and non Exec Director at the Royal Devon University Healthcare trust.

And until 2022, Martin was also the Chair of the Royal College of GPs and a GP in New East London. So definitely someone worth listening to about his experiences as well.

And Martin really focused in his talk on the relationship between general practice and policy and asked a really important question, which is how good are we as a profession at influencing decision decision makers?

And in his talk, Martin reflected on the fact that while the value of general practice is really well established for patients, communities and the wider nhs. It's often still misunderstood or undervalued at a policy level.

And in his talk he challenged whether that's purely down to policymakers or whether, as Julian Tudor Hart once put it, there's also an element of political literacy within the profession itself.

And what really followed was a thoughtful discussion about how both national leaders and individual clinicians can do more to shape policy, and whether that's through better communication, stronger advocacy, or even engaging more actively with the systems around us. It was a really thought provoking structure of the conference and linked closely to that broader theme of impact that ran throughout the day.

Here's just a short snippet of Martin speaking at the conference.

Speaker C
00:03:27.570 - 00:04:45.260
I wish I could have my career again and I'd be more influential than I was. I've learned a lot along the way, but this is what I've learned. First of all, as I've described, influencing is about far more than informy.

It's not about telling, it's about getting inside people's heads and understanding what's important to them. A lot of influencing is about timing. How do we decide when to influence? I think it's really important. Policy windows is an interesting concept.

So sometimes just a window opens that allows you to do something.

And a good example of this would be the evidence around Continuity of care, which is actually pretty strong in General practice was largely ignored by policymakers and politicians until the pandemic came along and they were looking for a way of delivering the vaccination program. And we made the case based on evidence that trust is really important to the success of uptake of vaccination programs.

And that's why government decided that general practice would deliver their program largely, rather than setting up a separate body to deliver it. So there's an example, another example of ways of change.

The NUFRE is doing some really important work around the distribution, the resource distribution formula for general practice, something which the Conservative governments of the past were not interested in, the Labour government is very interested in. So now is our time to push it while we can.

Speaker A
00:04:46.460 - 00:11:57.780
So it was a great start to the conference from Martin, which really focused down on how GPs and primary care researchers can get the most impact from their work to effect change. So in addition to the keynote sessions, we had a series of parallel sessions where people presented posters and talks about their work.

And what really struck me, listening to different talks and looking at the different posters that were on display, was just how strong the work was across the board, especially from medical students. And early career researchers.

There's clearly a lot of exciting work coming through and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of it published in the BJJP in the near future.

At the conference, we then had a series of workshops and these looked at patient and public involvement, writing for the BJGP and public speaking in academia. I attended Lucy Potter and the Bridging Gap team's excellent workshop on meaningful patient and public involvement in research.

Their team did an absolutely brilliant job at highlighting a familiar but important issue that those with the greatest health needs often face the biggest barriers to care and are probably the least likely to be involved meaningfully in research.

And what made this session stand out for me was that it was delivered alongside women with lived experience, which brought, I felt, a real deal, a real depth and authenticity to the discussion.

And the workshop was a absolutely powerful reminder of the importance of meaningful involvement and offered some really practical ideas for how we can better include marginalized patients in our work.

And going on to one of the regular features of the conference, which is the Right for Life workshop, led by our deputy editor at BJGP Life, Andrew Papaniktis and Tom Round. It's a really engaging session that encourages people to write and reflect on their experiences in general practice.

And I often describe JGP Life, the website, as sort of the coffee room of the journal. It's a space for more sort of reflective conversation and debate.

And here we're also always keen to receive some submissions from across the GP community, and it's probably worth pointing out that some of these pieces then go on to be published in the print journal too. And finally, the third workshop was led by Professor Graham Easton, who looked at public speaking for academics.

And I just want to touch on Graham's really interesting background that he was able to draw upon here. So, Graham was a senior producer for BBC Science Unit for many years and presented Case Notes, which is Radio 4's flagship medical program.

He's also a regular contributor to BBC Health Check and has quite a strong interest in the use of narratives and storytelling in medical education, which is a topic he looked at in depth in his doctoral work.

So, looking back to his workshop, it focused on something we've all experienced, which is sitting through a talk or presentation where the key message gets lost in really dense slides and you just lose the audience.

And Graham's session was all about how to communicate our work more clearly and make it engaging, using things like storytelling, simplifying your core message and using visuals that actually support you're saying, rather than Overwhelming it. It was a really practical session with lots of tips to take away and use straight away.

And I think that everyone who attended, who attended learned something new about how to present their research in an engaging and meaningful way. So that's a roundup of the workshops. And finally we had the last keynote speaker of the conference, Dr. Rebecca Payne.

And Rebecca really brought together one of the central themes of the conference, which was impact going back to Martin Marshall's talk as well. And Rebecca's talk focused on what happens after publication and challenged the idea that getting a paper accepted as the endpoint.

Instead, she kind of framed it as the beginning. So that's the point at which the real work of influencing practice...