ArticleBMJ open2025
Comfortable knowing little about lymphoedema? A qualitative study of medical interns in Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesKnowledgeable doctors are needed for timely assessment, diagnosis and management of lymphoedema. This qualitative study explored the thoughts and feelings of Australian interns (medical graduates in their first postgraduate year) towards (i) their understanding of the lymphatic system and lymphoedema, (ii) curricula pertaining to lymphoedema within their Australian medical degree and (iii) how they perceive that their understanding and medical training in lymphoedema influence their clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with interns employed within their first postgraduate year in Australia. Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams or telephone, video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Inductive (data-driven) codes identified in the data were organised into themes.
resultsThe overarching theme was one of ambivalence. Participants noted that they had knowledge gaps related to lymphoedema (theme 1), but were not concerned by them, as they did not consider lymphoedema a condition they were expected to know about at medical school or in clinical practice (theme 2). Furthermore, they questioned the relevance of lymphoedema to their role (theme 3) and they considered lymphoedema care to be the responsibility of others (theme 4).
conclusionThese findings suggest a discord between what interns in this study recall being taught about lymphoedema and what current literature suggests newly graduated doctors should know. Future research is needed to explore the extent to which these findings extend to the perceptions of more senior doctors and how these findings impact the unmet needs of people with lymphoedema in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.