ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023
Analysis of Barbie medical and science career dolls: descriptive quantitative study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify Barbie brand dolls that had medicine and science themed professions in comparison with other career dolls and to determine their accuracy in meeting clinical and laboratory safety standards.
designDescriptive quantitative study.
settingVisual and data analysis of web searches.
main outcome measuresTo identify the kinds of medical and scientific subspecialties that the Barbie dolls (and a comparison doll group) worked in; and to determine whether these medical professional and scientist dolls met laboratory and clinical safety standards. Additional data about doll demographics (ie, age, ethnic group, and sex) were also collected.
participants92 Barbie brand dolls were analyzed: doctor (n=53), scientist (n=10), science educator (n=2), nurse (n=15), dentist (n=11), and paramedic (n=1). 65 non-Barbie brand dolls were also analyzed for comparison purposes: doctor (n=26), scientist (n=27), nurse (n=7), dentist (n=2), engineer (n=2), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technician (n=1) dolls.
resultsBarbie brand medical professional dolls (n=80) largely treated children (66%, n=53/80), with only three (4%) medical professional dolls being directly depicted working with adults. Of the 12 scientist Barbie brand dolls, none met all proper personal protective equipment requirements related to hair and clothing. Barbie brand dolls often came with items, such as laboratory coats, microscopes, stethoscopes, and glasses, that children stereotypically associate with doctors and scientists. While comparison dolls offered a wider range of age and ethnic groups than the Barbie doll group did, the dolls similarly struggled to portray a wide range of medical and scientific subfields and most comparison dolls did not wear proper personal protective equipment.
conclusionsMedicine and science themed dolls help to inspire tomorrow's medical professionals and scientists. All toy companies should ensure that future medical professional and scientist dolls meet clinical and laboratory safety standards and diversify the types of medical and scientific professions represented (especially among male dominated fields). For young girls' sakes as much as her own, Barbie must keep shattering glass ceilings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.