We have located links that may give you full text access.
Gender bias in the evaluation of interns in different medical specialties: An archival study.
Medical Teacher 2022 March 23
INTRODUCTION: The field of medicine is characterized by within-field gender segregation: Gender ratios vary systematically by subdisciplines. This segregation might be, in part, due to gender bias in the assessment of women and men medical doctors.
METHODS: We examined whether the assessments, i.e. overall score, department scores and skills scores, interns receive by their superiors during their internship year, vary as a function of their gender and the representation of women in the field. We analyzed an archival data set from a large hospital in Israel which included 3326 assessments that were given to all interns who completed their internship year between 2015 and 2019.
RESULTS: Women received lower department scores and skills scores in fields with a low (versus high) representation of women. Men received higher scores in fields with a high (versus low) representation of men, yet there was no difference in their skills scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Women are evaluated more negatively in fields with a low representation of women doctors. Similarly, men are evaluated more negatively in fields with a low representation of men, yet this cannot be explained by their skills. This pattern of results might point to a gender bias in assessments. A better understanding of these differences is important as assessments affect interns' career choices and options.
METHODS: We examined whether the assessments, i.e. overall score, department scores and skills scores, interns receive by their superiors during their internship year, vary as a function of their gender and the representation of women in the field. We analyzed an archival data set from a large hospital in Israel which included 3326 assessments that were given to all interns who completed their internship year between 2015 and 2019.
RESULTS: Women received lower department scores and skills scores in fields with a low (versus high) representation of women. Men received higher scores in fields with a high (versus low) representation of men, yet there was no difference in their skills scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Women are evaluated more negatively in fields with a low representation of women doctors. Similarly, men are evaluated more negatively in fields with a low representation of men, yet this cannot be explained by their skills. This pattern of results might point to a gender bias in assessments. A better understanding of these differences is important as assessments affect interns' career choices and options.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation 2024 May 9
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app