4.5 Article

Female Medical Student Retention in Neurosurgery: A Multifaceted Approach

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 245-251

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.166

关键词

Gender disparity; Glass ceiling; Medical student; Women in neurosurgery; Women in surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, more women than men have graduated from medical school, yet there remains a paucity of female physicians in surgical specialties. After the 2018 Neurosurgery Match, only 17.5% of neurosurgery residents are women. Previous literature documented gender inequality, poor medical school exposure, and lack of female mentorship as reasons for this disparity. We sought to further explore factors that deter female medical students from pursuing neurosurgery. METHODS: A comprehensive survey was created and distributed to the 2017-2018 Rutgers New Jersey Medical School student body, requesting anonymous input from female medical students. RESULTS: Of 104 female respondents, 26.9% had considered neurosurgery as a career and felt dissuaded because of their gender. Of respondents, 88% did not have a senior female medical student pursuing neurosurgery or a female neurosurgical resident as a mentor. More than half of respondents disagreed that they would be dissuaded from a field if they did not have a female mentor. The 88.46% of women who felt that there was a glass ceiling in medicine were also more likely to feel that they would face inequality and adversity that would inhibit training in a male-dominated field. Women who described themselves as seeking challenging and competitive careers strongly felt that they would benefit from exposure to surgical subspecialties during their preclinical years. CONCLUSIONS: Female medical students remain resilient, ambitious, interested in competitive specialties, and eager to explore surgical subspecialties during preclinical years. A multifaceted approach is imperative to recruit and retain qualified women interested in neurosurgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据