Retirement plans and perspectives among general surgeons: a qualitative assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: General surgeons’ retirement plans have wide-ranging personal, professional and system-level effects. We explored the drivers of and barriers to surgeon retirement to identify opportunities to support career-long retirement planning. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study from May to October 2016 using semi-structured telephone interviews (mean duration 29 min) with general surgeons in Ontario. We used a purposive sampling strategy to recruit surgeons at 3 career stages (no plans to retire within next 5 yr, had slowed down practice or planned to slowdown within 5 yr, and no longer operating as primary surgeon). We analyzed the data using established techniques of thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed 22 general surgeons. Their retirement status ranged from fully retired to no plans to retire. Preservation of reputation and quality care, commitment and succession planning, and retirement planning were dominant themes. Mid-career and senior surgeons’ plans were made later in their careers and were driven by desires to preserve reputations and surgical identity. Younger surgeons’ (≤ 50 yr) early retirement was driven by lifestyle choices and work environment. Logistical barriers and financial insecurity led to retirement delay. Conclusion: Surgeons begin to plan for retirement both early and late in their careers. Most surgeons wish to establish retirement plans that allow for the gradual reduction of surgical patient care and the creation of job opportunities for younger colleagues balanced by a continued contribution to the profession. Opportunities to support surgeons at all career stages in their retirement planning require further exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".