SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
A bibliometric analysis of research on factors influencing STEM career choices: gender, identity, self-efficacy, and self-concept.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines a search-defined body of STEM career-choice literature retrieved through queries combining STEM-related, career-related, gender-related, and psychosocial-construct terms, including identity, self-efficacy, and self-concept. Records from Web of Science and Scopus were screened through a PRISMA-informed process, yielding 181 publications from 2001 to 2026. Bibliometric performance analysis and science-mapping techniques were conducted in R to examine publication trends, leading contributors, geographical patterns, international co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, thematic structure, and thematic evolution. Annual scientific output generally increased, particularly after 2010, although the pattern fluctuated across years. The highest observed output was recorded in 2025, with 27 publications, while an exploratory life-cycle model estimated a peak of approximately 17 publications around 2021.9. Because the model fit was moderate and 2026 was incomplete, this trajectory was interpreted cautiously. Publication activity was geographically concentrated, and single-country publications outnumbered multiple-country publications among the leading corresponding-author countries. Keyword analysis identified two connected clusters: one emphasizing science, gender, self-efficacy, STEM, identity, achievement, and career aspirations, and another centered on career choice, math, technology, students, education, engineering, motivation, and self-concept. The thematic map positioned career choice, technology, and students as a motor theme; science, gender, and self-efficacy as a basic or transversal theme; goals, persistence, and adolescents as a niche theme; and race, qualitative research, and school students as an emerging or declining theme. Thematic evolution indicated a shift from an earlier structure involving motivation, adolescence, math, women, and science education toward a later structure centered on gender and career choice.
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.