ArticleSociology of health & illness2026
Gender Segregation in Medicine: The Impact of Stereotypes on Speciality Perceptions and Choices.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examines the role of gender stereotypes in shaping the perceptions and specialisation choices of medical students in Italy. Although women are increasingly entering the medical profession, strong gender segregation persists across medical specialities, with surgical and technological fields remaining male-dominated and people-oriented specialities female-dominated. Using a survey of 502 senior medical students, the analysis explores whether students perceive certain specialities as more suitable for men or women, and how gendered dispositions influence these perceptions and career orientations. The results show that gendered patterns in both perceptions and intended specialisation choices cannot be fully accounted for by gender alone. Rather, they are mediated by communal and agentic traits, understood as socially produced dispositions aligned with the organisation of medical work. Students with stronger communal orientations are less likely to endorse gender-stereotypical views, whereas agentic traits are associated with perceiving certain fields-both male- and female-dominated-as more suitable for one gender. Family background also plays a role, with students from medical families more likely to perceive specialities as gendered. Overall, the findings suggest that implicit biases continue to shape medical career trajectories through indirect and less visible pathways, even in contexts of increasing gender parity in education.
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.