Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30453953›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

To select or be selected - gendered experiences in clinical training affect medical students' specialty preferences.

Emelie Kristoffersson, Saima Diderichsen, Petra Verdonk, Toine Lagro-Janssen, Katarina Hamberg, Jenny Andersson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Gender Differences in Self-Assessment Among Clerkship Medical Students Despite Equivalent Academic and Clinical Performance.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emelie KristofferssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. emelie.kristoffersson@umu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8404-9623
Saima DiderichsenDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Petra VerdonkDepartment of Medical Humanities, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, School of Medical Sciences, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Toine Lagro-JanssenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, unit for Gender and Women's Health, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katarina HambergDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Jenny AnderssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe literature investigating female and male medical students' differing career intentions is extensive. However, medical school experiences and their implications for professional identity formation and specialty choice have attracted less attention. In this study we explore the impact of medical school experiences on students' specialty preferences, investigate gender similarities and differences, and discuss how both might be related to gender segregation in specialty preference.

methodsIn a questionnaire, 250 Swedish final-year medical students described experiences that made them interested and uninterested in a specialty. Utilizing a sequential mixed methods design, their responses were analyzed qualitatively to create categories that were compared quantitatively.

resultsSimilar proportions of women and men became interested in a specialty based on its knowledge area, patient characteristics, and potential for work-life balance. These aspects, however, often became secondary to whether they felt included or excluded in clinical settings. More women than men had been deterred by specialties with excluding, hostile, or sexist workplace climates (W = 44%, M = 16%). In contrast, more men had been discouraged by specialties' knowledge areas (W = 27%, M = 47%).

conclusionsMale and female undergraduates have similar incentives and concerns regarding their career. However, the prevalence of hostility and sexism in the learning environment discourages especially women from some specialties. To reduce gender segregation in specialty choice, energy should be directed towards counteracting hostile workplace climates that explain apparent stereotypical assumptions about career preferences of men and women.

Indexed as

Career ChoiceChoice BehaviorStudents, MedicalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMedicineMiddle AgedMotivationSex FactorsSexismSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenYoung AdultMedical studentsMixed methodsProfessional identity formationSexismSpecialty preference

Identifiers

PMID30453953
PMCPMC6245780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.