Mixed-methods analysis reveals factors affecting junior doctor conference attendance, highlighting accessibility and networking challenges.
Introduction: Resident doctors require professional development through conference attendance yet there are major challenges to the ways in which attendance is impacted. The COVID-19 pandemic created a shift in education delivery, including medical conferences moving towards online setting. The aim of the study was to explore the factors influencing conference attendance and the post-COVID-19 implications for the future of conference delivery and professional development. Methods: A mixed-methods approach comprising of an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews was used. Theoretical sampling was performed to invite UK-based resident doctors to complete the questionnaire. Individuals were then invited to a semi-structured interview to explore their experiences further. Content analysis was performed for questionnaire data and thematic analysis for interview data. Results: Seventy-four doctors completed the questionnaire, of these 15 participated in semi-structured interviews. During the COVID-19 pandemic most trainees attended online events, but with the abolition of travel restrictions all were keen to return to the face-to-face format. Motivational learning promoted the drive for conference attendance. Other factors included networking and the attainment of continuous professional development points. Discussion: The findings demonstrate how professional development can be successfully enacted through changes to the delivery of conferences. Virtual conferences promote inclusivity and accessibility for doctors in training. However, the lack of opportunities to network is their main drawback. Whilst face-to-face conferences are considered the most attractive; concerns regarding cost, leave, sustainability and work–life balance affect motivation to attend. The findings have implications for educators, resident doctors and conference organisers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giannoudi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: