Evaluating the well-being of ENT trainees in the UK: survey findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Association of Otolaryngologists in Training wanted to assess trainee well-being. METHODS: A survey was developed that incorporated the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and the Brief Resilience Scale plus questions on working conditions. RESULTS: There were 190 responses and while most respondents had low or moderate levels of burnout, 15 per cent had high personal burnout and 13 per cent had high work-related burnout. The mean well-being score for respondents was lower than for the whole population mean. In addition, 39 per cent of respondents reported their mental well-being had been slightly affected in a negative way by their working environment and conditions in the last 6 months, and 26 per cent reported it being significantly affected negatively. Of these, 43 respondents reported an impact on patient safety. CONCLUSION: This first-ever survey of ENT trainees in the UK identified several areas of concern, including how the working environment and conditions affect trainee well-being and impact patient safety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".