|
Be careful how you report survey results
See response from: L Buske I read with great interest a recent Pulse column in CMAJ.1 However, I have several major concerns with Lynda Buske's reporting of the survey of residency program directors concerning job opportunities in their specialties over the next 5 years. While the statement that a majority of program directors in 4 specialties (occupational medicine, neurosurgery, pediatrics and community medicine) thought that job opportunities in their specialties would either remain constant or deteriorate over the next 5 years is technically correct, it is misleading. A detailed review of the CaRMS survey report shows that respondents were asked to specify if they believed job opportunities in their specialty would (1) improve, (2) remain constant or (3) deteriorate over the next 5 years. For these 4 specialties the results of the survey were as follows: 100% (2/2) of occupational medicine program directors felt that job opportunities would remain constant; 22% (2/9) of neurosurgery program directors felt that job opportunites would improve, 44% (4/9) felt that they would remain constant and 33% (3/9) felt that they would deteriorate; 46% (6/13) of pediatrics program directors felt that job opportunities would improve and 54% (7/13) felt that they would remain constant; and 50% (2/4) of community medicine program directors felt that job opportunites would improve and 50% (2/4) felt that they would remain constant. By choosing to group "remain constant" and "deteriorate" together, Buske presented a distorted view of the results. Imagine how the article would have read if she had chosen to group "constant" and "improve" together. I would suggest that in only 1 of these specialties neurosurgery is it true that program directors thought job opportunities would deteriorate over the next 5 years. In the other 3 the survey results indicate that opportunities are expected to either remain constant (occupational medicine) or actually improve (pediatrics and community medicine) over that time period. Unfortunately, this article has misinformed the journal's readers, particularly medical students who depend on sources such as CMAJ to make difficult career decisions.
Bart Harvey Reference
© 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors |