ArticleBMC medical education2026
Breaking stereotypes or making compromises? gender, income, and the unequal landscape of medical specialty choice.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical specialty choice shapes both physician identity and healthcare systems. Specialty choices are influenced not only by academic interest and aptitude but also by gender norms and socioeconomic pressures. While these dynamics are well documented in high income settings, fewer studies examine how perceived gender roles and income expectations jointly influence specialty preferences in LMICs contexts.
methodsThis sequential mixed methods study combined a cross-sectional online survey with semi structured interviews. The quantitative phase included 155 medical students (response rate 79.5%) and examined associations between demographic characteristics and specialty preferences. The qualitative phase comprised 34 interviews purposively sampled across all five cohorts. Interview data were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke's six step framework, following an inductive and reflexive approach guided by Social Cognitive Career Theory to explore how students understood and negotiated gender norms, income potential, and workload intensity.
resultsQuantitative analysis showed no statistically significant associations between income-based specialty preference and gender, GPA, family income, hometown, or high school background (all p > 0.05). High income specialties were selected by 60 students (39%), low-income specialties by 26 (17%), and other fields by 69 (44%), with similar gender distribution across these groups (p = 0.81). In contrast, qualitative analysis revealed pronounced gendered patterns. Many female students chose specialties they perceived as low intensity, often citing anticipated caregiving responsibilities and work life balance concerns as reasons for avoiding surgery, emergency medicine, and other high intensity fields. Male students frequently reported social and familial pressure to pursue prestigious or high-income specialties, prioritizing financial stability and provider roles even when these conflicted with personal interests. Across both genders, themes highlighted the centrality of perceived income, prestige, mentorship inequities, and cultural narratives of sacrifice in shaping career compromises.
conclusionSpecialty choice among medical students in LMICs reflects not only personal interest but also structural inequities linked to gender norms and income expectations. Although quantitative analysis of demographic factors did not independently predict specialty preferences, qualitative findings revealed powerful social pressures that shape career compromises. Targeted, gender sensitive career counselling, equitable mentorship, and financial support are needed to enable students to choose specialties that align with their values and competencies.
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.