Search for a command to run...
We sincerely thank Heaton et al. 1 for their many positive comments regarding our recent publication 2. While much effort was made to recruit from the ‘finding things easier’ cohort of the quantitative arm 3, they simply did not come forward to be interviewed. We agree that this could have introduced bias in the qualitative section but we highlighted our 10:2 ratio of ‘finding things harder’ and ‘finding things easier’ groups in the paper so that readers were aware. It is also important to emphasise that, as we wrote in our methods section, participants’ scores were not examined before interview so the data collection process could be as open and unbiased as possible. When we conducted our reflexive thematic analysis, we found data pertaining to positive themes from participants in the ‘finding things harder’ group (e.g. the privilege of seeing and enabling what were termed ‘miracles’) and data pertaining to negative themes from the participants in the ‘finding things easier group’ (e.g. the need to be in two places in once, such as on the rota while simultaneously revising). The narrative might be weighted towards the ‘finding things harder’ group in terms of those people we were able to interview. However, because we could estimate how prevalent the issues of stress/depression/burnout were using quantitative methods in the whole population 3, the fact that the qualitative data under-represented the ‘finding things easier’ group should not bias the results of the study as a whole. We do agree it is reasonable to observe that we were not able to drill down in as much detail in the ‘finding things easier’ group. We also agree wholeheartedly that much more needs to be known about the internal and external factors that enable those who are finding the job easier than others in order to experience a more positive working life. We note the highly proactive nature of many Trusts and the Royal College of Anaesthetists 4 with regard to improving trainee job stressors.