Aim: To investigate the career intentions, work-life balance and retirement plans of dental undergraduates at the University of Bristol in 2015.Method: Cross-sectional survey of 210 clinical undergraduates using an anonymous self-report questionnaire. Results:The response rate was 79%. The majority (81.7%) were 'satisfied' or 'extremely satisfied' with their choice of career. The majority (78.7%) felt men and women are equally likely to succeed in dentistry, although 42.9% felt men had an advantage over women with regards to career success. The majority (81.6%) intend on working within general practice, 11.3% within hospital dental services and 2.1% within community dental services. The majority (70.5%) intend on specialising within dentistry. Only 1.8% of participants intend on providing only National Health Service (NHS) dental treatment whereas the 86.5% would provide both NHS and private dental treatment. Fifteen years after qualifying, 52.2% plan to work part-time, and 37.8% intend on retiring at the age of 60 or below. The majority (86.6%) felt that childcare should be shared equally between both parents. Female students intend on taking more time out of their career to concentrate on childcare and felt that having a child would affect their career more. Conclusion:The anticipated career plans, work-life balance and retirement plans of undergraduates change over time, and further research should be carried out to monitor future career intentions of dental students in order to help with future dental workforce planning.3

ImportanceLong-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use.ObjectiveTo compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form–Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported.ExposuresSARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsAmong 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19–positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19–negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19–positive group vs the COVID-19–negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19–positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, participants in both the COVID-19–positive and COVID-19–negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

No abstract

Background: Primary care practice teams continue to grapple with the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, despite the increased demands and low levels of control, in practices where protective equipment were available and practice-level support was high, few team members reported burnout, and many described a greater sense of purpose. However, since those early days, burnout levels have increased and high rates of turnover have been reported across the health care system, and further qualitative studies are needed.Objective: The present study is a follow-up to a qualitative study on the workplace stress during the pandemic.Design, Participants, Approach: Fourteen primary care providers and staff completed 1-year followup semistructured interviews (approximately 1.5 years into the pandemic) about their workplace demands, control, social support, burnout, and commitment to primary care.Primary Results: Primary care practice was characterized as high demand before the pandemic but the additional demands of the pandemic were leading participants to consider early retirement, quitting primary care or health care, and expressing a profound need for health care redesign. Short staffing extended medical leaves for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 needs, increased management of patient mental health and aggressive behaviors, and frustration that practices were being held to prepandemic metrics all contributed to ever higher rates of burnout. Troublingly, while many described high-quality relationships at the practice level, the majority of participants described their organization-level support as largely unresponsive to their input and as offering little support or resources, though a few acknowledged that this could reflect that leadership is also under immense strain. Despite challenges, a number of participants expressed continued commitment to primary care.Conclusion: Fundamental redesign of primary care is required to prevent further loss of health care personnel and to provide opportunities for these staff to recover during the grueling, ongoing crisis.