ArticleBMJ open2025
Fertility, family planning, pregnancy and motherhood among women doctors working in the EU and UK: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWomen doctors face considerable challenges navigating family planning, pregnancy and motherhood. Their experiences can have relevance for health system functioning, including doctor retention. This scoping review synthesises research on family planning, fertility, pregnancy and motherhood among women doctors in the EU and the UK.
designScoping review conducted according to JBI best practice guidance. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched, and supplemented with backwards and forwards citation chasing. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed, original research, in English, focusing on either fertility and family planning, pregnancy and/or motherhood among women doctors in an EU country(s) and/or the UK. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted independently by two authors. Data were synthesised using deductive content analysis and collated using narrative synthesis.
resultsIn total, 34 studies were identified. Family planning appears complicated by medical careers. Medical specialty choice is particularly impacted, with certain specialties (eg, General Practice) considered particularly family friendly and others markedly less so. Pregnancy complications among women doctors, especially surgeons, were documented. However, women doctors' and non-doctors' pregnancy outcomes were overall not significantly different. Notably, doctor-mothers had fewer children and were more likely to report making compromises or facing negative consequences when balancing family and career than doctor-fathers.
conclusionsWomen doctors in the EU and UK report challenges in balancing work and motherhood. With the potential for their experiences to impact on health system functioning and patient outcomes, training bodies and health organisations should take proactive action to better support women doctors and ensure they can remain in the profession and practice in their desired specialty. Future research examining working practices/schedules during pregnancy, breastfeeding experiences, parenting and childcare and maternal mental health will support a better understanding of women doctors' experiences and facilitate implementation of effective supports.
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.