The work of receptionists in general practice is evolving rapidly and becoming more complex due to a number of changes within primary and community care services, such as increased digitalisation. In under-served areas, these changes have been further complicated by under-resourcing and workforce challenges around staff recruitment and retention. The National Health Service (NHS) 10-year health plan is set to accelerate further significant changes. There is limited understanding about how and why these changes and workforce challenges are impacting and will impact the future work of receptionists in general practice in under-served areas.

This realist review will build on an existing programme theory related to general practitioner workforce sustainability. The review will examine what works, for whom, how and under what circumstances for receptionist work in general practice, in under-served areas. For example, how influences such as the expectations of patients (in under-served communities), poor staffing or limited career progression. Key stakeholders, including public contributors and individuals from general practice settings, will inform the realist review.

The review will be conducted using existing secondary and grey literature sources. The search strategy comprises five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE, SSCI, AHCI) with a date limit of 2015 applied to the search. The review will follow Pawson’s five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The findings will be reported in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards.

Ethical approval is not needed for secondary analysis. The findings of this review will contribute to ongoing work as part of our ‘Workforce Voices’ programme of research. They will be disseminated to policymakers, commissioners, providers of health and social care and primary care and community healthcare teams through peer-reviewed publications, members of the public, conference presentations, social media and recommendations.

To identify and understand the barriers and enablers influencing medical students’ engagement with research and consideration of academic careers.

This was a mixed-methods explanatory sequential study comprising two surveys (Phase 1 and Phase 2), followed by semistructured interviews (Phase 3).

The School of Medicine at Newcastle University.

All students from all year groups at The School of Medicine, Newcastle University (UK) were invited to participate, with data collected from 343 survey respondents and 25 students in semistructured interviews.

Survey responses from 188 students in Phase 1 (exploratory survey) and 155 students in Phase 2 (general student survey) identified barriers which reflect personal experience (eg, lack of knowledge and confidence), practical constraints (eg, time constraints and academic pressures) and institutional contexts (eg, insufficient research teaching and lack of formal opportunities). Enablers included mentors and other sources of information about research.

Interview data emphasised that academic mentoring relationships are often emergent rather than planned. The limited visibility of research opportunities and of mentors was a significant barrier and perpetuated a culture where research was not normalised within the curriculum. Conversely, enablers included intrinsic motivations (eg, intellectual curiosity and desire to contribute to knowledge) and extrinsic motivations (eg, career advancement). Social dynamics between peer groups emerged, whereby these could act as either a barrier or an enabler, depending on the normalisation of research within their networks.

To enhance engagement with research and promote the attractiveness of a clinical academic career, research should become a ‘normal’ part of undergraduate medical education. Visible integration of research into the undergraduate curriculum, providing structured mentorship programmes and ensuring equitable access to research opportunities will aid this. Addressing these factors may sustain the pipeline of students pursuing clinical academic careers.

Disabled resident doctors face persistent structural, cultural and institutional barriers to career progression. This integrative review synthesises empirical and grey literature to identify the challenges disabled doctors encounter, the practices that support their careers and the potential solutions applicable to healthcare, in particular National Health Service (NHS), settings.

Integrative literature review using a content analysis approach to data analysis. Included sources were published in English and examined disabled doctors’ career progression or included disabled doctors as a separate subgroup. Opinion pieces without empirical grounding and articles not available in full text were excluded.

International postgraduate medical education, with consideration for transferability and applicability to the UK NHS.

Focused on the experiences and careers of disabled resident doctors, at any stage of their career, prior to completion of training.

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity guidelines, 53 sources were included and analysed. Structural ableism, inaccessible systems and stigma around disclosure were consistently identified as barriers to career progression. Facilitators included mentorship, affirming supervisory relationships and identity-affirming networks. Promising practices included universal design approaches, anticipatory rather than reactive approaches to making adjustments and integration of disability equity into organisational governance. However, most initiatives remain unevaluated, and UK-specific evidence is limited.

While awareness of barriers is growing, evidence-based solutions remain underdeveloped and unevenly implemented. To build a sustainable and representative medical workforce, workforce policy and planning must not only remove barriers to progression for disabled doctors, but also embed disability inclusion into the structures and cultures that shape medical career paths.