Gender, flexibility and workforce in the NHS: A qualitative study

Data from the General Medical Council show that the number of female doctors registered to practise in the UK continues to grow at a faster rate than the number of male doctors. Our research critically discusses the impact of this gender-based shift, considering how models of medical training are still ill-suited to supporting equity and inclusivity within the workforce, with particular impacts for women despite this gender shift. Drawing on data from our research project Mapping underdoctored areas: the impact of medical training pathways on NHS workforce distribution and health inequalities, this paper explores the experiences of doctors working in the NHS, considering how policies around workforce and beyond have impacted people's willingness and ability to continue in their chosen career path. There is clear evidence that women are underrepresented in some specialties such as surgery, and at different career stages including in senior leadership roles, and our research focuses on the structural factors that contribute to reinforcing these under-representations. Medical education and training are known to be formative points in doctors' lives, with long-lasting impacts for NHS service provision. By understanding in detail how these pathways inadvertently shape where doctors live and work, we will be able to consider how best to change existing systems to provide patients with timely and appropriate access to healthcare. We take a cross-disciplinary theoretical approach, bringing historical, spatiotemporal and sociological insights to healthcare problems. Here, we draw on our first 50 interviews with practising doctors employed in the NHS in areas that struggle to recruit and retain doctors, and explore the gendered nature of career biographies. We also pay attention to the ways in which doctors carve their own career pathways out of, or despite of, personal and professional disruptions.

Unsettling the treatment imperative? Chemotherapy decision-making in the wake of genomic techniques

Social scientists have argued that a treatment imperative shapes experiences of biomedicine. This is evident within oncology, where discourses of hope are tempered by persistent fears surrounding cancer. It is within this context that genomic decision-making tools are entering routine care. These may indicate that a treatment is not appropriate for a particular disease profile. We draw on qualitative interviews and observations centred on gene expression profiling to consider the implications of this technique for the treatment imperative in early breast cancer. Influenced by sociological perspectives on medical technologies, we discuss how fallibilities of established tools have forged a space for the introduction of genomic testing into chemotherapy decision-making. We demonstrate how high expectations shaped patients' interpretations of this tool as facilitating the 'right' treatment choice. We then unpick these accounts, highlighting the complex relationship between gene expression profiling and treatment decision-making. We argue that anticipations for genomic testing to provide certainty in treatment choice must account for the sociocultural and organisational contexts in which it is used, including the powerful entwinement of chemotherapy and cancer. Our research has implications for sociological perspectives on treatment decision-making and clinical expectations for genomic medicine to resolve the 'problem' of overtreatment.

Diagnostic layering: Patient accounts of breast cancer classification in the molecular era

Social scientific work has considered the promise of genomic medicine to transform healthcare by personalising treatment. However, little qualitative research attends to already well-established molecular techniques in routine care. In this article we consider women's experiences of routine breast cancer diagnosis in the UK NHS. We attend to patient accounts of the techniques used to subtype breast cancer and guide individual treatment. We introduce the concept of 'diagnostic layering' to make sense of how the range of clinical techniques used to classify breast cancer shape patient experiences of diagnosis. The process of diagnostic layering, whereby various levels of diagnostic information are received by patients over time, can render diagnosis as incomplete and subject to change. In the example of early breast cancer, progressive layers of diagnostic information are closely tied to chemotherapy recommendations. In recent years a genomic test, gene expression profiling, has become introduced into routine care. Because gene expression profiling could indicate a treatment recommendation where standard tools had failed, the technique could represent a 'final layer' of diagnosis for some patients. However, the test could also invalidate previous understandings of the cancer, require additional interpretation and further prolong the diagnostic process. This research contributes to the sociology of diagnosis by outlining how practices of cancer subtyping shape patient experiences of breast cancer. We add to social scientific work attending to the complexities of molecular and genomic techniques by considering the blurring of diagnostic and therapeutic activities from a patient perspective.

Accessing targeted therapies for cancer: self and collective advocacy alongside and beyond mainstream cancer charities

As precision oncology has evolved, patients and their families have become more involved in efforts to access these treatments via fundraising and campaigning that take place outside of the larger cancer charities. In this paper, we explore the solidarities, networks, and emotional work of the UK-based access advocates, drawing on the stories of nine advocates, which included interviews and content analyses of their social media posts and coverage of their case in news, commentary, and fundraising websites. We consider the emotional and knowledge work of building networks that spanned consumerist and activist agendas, forged individual and collective goals, and orientations toward the public, private, and third sectors as part of securing support and access. Through these various practices, the actors we have studied cultivated personal advantage and solidarities with other patients and advocates, and in so doing engaged in self and collective advocacy alongside and beyond mainstream cancer charities.

Accomplishing an adaptive clinical trial for cancer: Valuation practices and care work across the laboratory and the clinic

A new generation of adaptive, multi-arm clinical trials has been developed in cancer research including those offering experimental treatments to patients based on the genomic analysis of their cancer. Depending on the molecular changes found in patients’ cancer cells, it is anticipated that targeted and personalised therapies will be made available for those who have reached the end of standard treatment options, potentially extending survival time. Results from these trials are also expected to advance genomic knowledge for patients in the future. Drawing on data from a qualitative study of one such trial in the UK, comprising observations of out-patient clinic appointments, out-patient biopsy procedures, laboratory work, and interviews with practitioners, this paper explores how the clinical and research value of one such trial was accomplished in everyday practice by focussing on the work of clinical trials and laboratory staff across recruitment, laboratory analysis, and results management. In the face of numerous potential set-backs, disappointments and failure, we explore how practitioners worked to balance the need to meet established measures of value such as numbers of patients recruited into the trial, alongside cultivating the value of positive affects for patients by managing their expectations and emotions. This care work was performed primarily by practitioners whose roles have historically been devalued in healthcare practice and yet, as we show, were critical to this process. We conclude by arguing that as complex multi-arm adaptive trials become more commonplace, we need to attend to, and render visible, the dynamic and care-full valuation practices of backstage practitioners through which experimental biomedicine is accomplished, and in doing so show that care both achieves clinical and research value, and is also a series of practices and processes that tends to tissue, patients and staff in the context of ever-present possibility of failure.

•

Experimental genomic based trials are difficult to accomplish in practice.

•

Valuation practices happen throughout recruitment and trial participation.

•

Value was made via coordinative practices of care in the context of failure.

•

Staff balance clinical and research value alongside expectations and emotions.

•

Vital backstage practices of care were performed by devalued healthcare staff.

Genomic research and the cancer clinic: uncertainty and expectations in professional accounts

This paper explores clinicians' and scientists' accounts of genomic research in cancer care and the complexities and challenges involved with delivering this work. Contributing to the sociology of (low) expectations, we draw on sociological studies of uncertainty in medicine to explore their accounts of working with uncertainty as part of the management of patient and institutional expectations. We consider their appeals to the importance of modest inquiry and framing of the uncertainties of genomic medicine as normal and at times welcome as they sought to configure professional autonomy and jurisdictions and cultivate an experimental ethos amongst their patients. We argue that these types of uncertainty work [Star, S. L. 1985. "Scientific Work and Uncertainty." Social Studies of Science 15 (3): 391-427] are a key feature of managing expectations at the intersections of genomic research and clinical care.