Gender similarities in doctors' preferences -- and gender differences in final specialisation
This article is based on a career history study of gender differences and similarities in recruitment to and transitions between specialities among Norwegian doctors. A questionnaire on career and family history was sent to all Norwegian doctors authorised in 1980-1983. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to describe and analyse completion of specialisation in the specialty in which they started their career. Survival analysis was used to analyse transitions between medical specialities. The findings clearly contradict the idea that the low proportion of women in male dominated areas of medicine reflects women's lack of interest in specialities like surgery and internal medicine. Women were as likely as men to start their career in these fields. The problem is their not completing specialist training. A far higher proportion of men than women completed their specialist training in surgery. The reasons for this are complex. Heavy work loads with duties and "nights on call" make it difficult for women to combine childcare and work and make them change to other specialities. Also, female specialists in surgery and internal medicine postpone having their first child compared to women in other medical specialities. However, the fact that some women change from surgery to gynaecology and obstetrics, a specialty which to a considerable extent are comparable with surgery with regard to duty and work loads, indicate that structural barriers in combining childcare and a hospital career do not fully explain the flux of women. The possible existence of other closure mechanisms in surgery, as indicated by some doctors in this and in other studies, have to be further explored.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 54 (2002)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:4:p:591-605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.