Experiences of bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, amongst ENT trainees in the UK: survey findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Association of Otolaryngologists in Training wanted to assess the experiences of bullying, harassment and raising concerns in their otolaryngology posts. METHODS: An online survey of otolaryngology trainees, with 190 responses out of 350 targeted, included questions on bullying and harassment. RESULTS: Many respondents had experienced or witnessed a range of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment behaviours, including: unrealistic expectations about workload, responsibilities or level of competence; inadequate or absent supervision; and undervaluing someone's contribution (in their presence or otherwise). However, very few (5 per cent or less) had reported them. Twenty-one per cent would not feel confident in reporting bullying/harassment or sexual harassment problems, and 40 per cent do not feel safe raising concerns. Just 10 per cent said the existing reporting mechanisms are sufficient. CONCLUSION: A number of initiatives have been introduced recently in the UK to address bullying and harassment within the medical workplace, but there is still potential for further development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".