Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35866692›Full record

ArticleWomen's health (London, England)

Merging motherhood and medicine: A qualitative study exploring barriers and enablers to motherhood among female doctors in Australia.

Erika Collie, Raelia Lew, Michelle Peate

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Experiences of Women Faculty in an Academic Medical Center.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Erika CollieThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9810-4593
Raelia LewThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michelle PeateThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2903-4688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify barriers and enablers to motherhood experienced by female doctors in Australia.

methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 18 female physician-mothers in Australia, during March and May 2020. Interview data were examined using thematic analysis to extract key themes.

resultsSix key barriers and seven key enablers were identified. Barriers (B1-6) largely reflected structural and cultural issues operating within health services and the wider medical profession. Barriers were the experience of working in medicine (B1); demands of postgraduate specialty training (B2); attitudes towards mothers in medicine (B3); gender inequality (B4); insufficient entitlements and support (B5); and competing priorities, conflicting roles (B6). Enablers were supportive partnerships (E1); break from traditional gender roles (E2); capacity to delegate/outsource (E3); doctors supporting doctors (E4); flexible work arrangements (E5); increasing acceptance and support (E6); and capacity to combine career and family (E7).

conclusionThis was the first qualitative study to explore motherhood experiences among female doctors in Australia. Participants reported structural and cultural barriers during all stages of motherhood. The mismatch between identified barriers and available supports reveals opportunities for improving the experience of physician-mothers.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAustraliaFemaleHumansMothersQualitative Researchdoctorsfemalegendermedical educationmedicinemotherhoodmothersphysiciansqualitativereproduction

Identifiers

PMID35866692
PMCPMC9310336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.