ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
'Charge what you think you're worth': a qualitative study exploring the gender pay gap in medicine and the role of price transparency.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe gender pay gap in medicine is entrenched and has a negative impact on economic growth, institutional reputation and financial success, recruitment, retention and job satisfaction of female specialists and patient care. It also discourages women from entering specialist fields of medicine. In the Australian unregulated market setting, female specialists are not simply getting paid less, they are choosing to set lower fees than their male counterparts.
aimsWe examine how implicit and explicit gender biases affect how fees are set and the potential role of price transparency in addressing the gender pay gap.
methodsWe conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with medical specialists recruited via social media and medical society newsletters between June 2021 and March 2022. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Twenty surgeons and seven anaesthetists, 15 of whom identified as male and 12 as female, participated in this study. The primary outcomes and measures focused on the perspectives of surgeons and anaesthetists regarding fee-setting practices.
resultsA combination of contextual and market- and gender-related factors was the source of the biases that determine fee setting. Further, information asymmetry in medicine in Australia underlies current fee-setting practices, exacerbating and entrenching false perceptions about women's skills as surgeons and anaesthetists. Women tend to internalise these biases, self-regulating their behaviours and how they set their fees.
conclusionThe gender pay gap is pervasive. Greater transparency on fees and quality could be explored as a potential solution to reduce pay inequality.
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.