ArticlePloS one2025
A national survey of career development according to gender and subspecialties among cardiologists in Japan.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraining opportunities, work satisfaction, and the factors that influence them according to gender and subspecialties are understudied among Japanese cardiologists.
methodsWe investigated the career development of Japanese cardiologists with an e-mail questionnaire. Feelings of inequality in training opportunities, work dissatisfaction, and reasons were assessed by examining the cardiologists' gender and invasiveness of subspecialties.
resultsResponses were received from 2,566 cardiologists. Female cardiologists were underrepresented in invasive subspecialties compared to males (14.2% vs. 85.8%, p<0.0001). In both invasive and non-invasive subspecialties, female cardiologists felt more inequality in training opportunities than males (invasive: 50.0% vs. 36.2%, non-invasive: 41.6% vs. 30.9%, p<0.001, respectively) and were less satisfied with their work (invasive: 26.0% vs. 18.3%, non-invasive: 24.7% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.001, respectively). Although female cardiologists in invasive subspecialties did not feel significantly more inequal and dissatisfied than those in non-invasive subspecialties (p = 0.063 and p = 0.758, respectively), male cardiologists in invasive subspecialties felt more inequal and dissatisfied than those in non-invasive subspecialties (p = 0.015 and p = 0.040, respectively). Female cardiologists were more influenced by gender bias and family issues for inequality in training opportunities (p = 0.0001, respectively), whereas male cardiologists were likely to be affected by specifications of belonging hospitals. Both genders felt dissatisfied when their expectations were unmet and they were overworked.
conclusionsFemale cardiologists felt more inequality regarding training opportunities and dissatisfaction with career development than male cardiologists in both the invasive and non-invasive subspecialties. Diversity support is warranted for achieving satisfying career course regardless of gender and subspecialty.
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.