IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v54y2002i4p591-605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender similarities in doctors' preferences -- and gender differences in final specialisation

Author

Listed:
  • Gjerberg, Elisabeth

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gjerberg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Gender similarities in doctors' preferences -- and gender differences in final specialisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 591-605, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:4:p:591-605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00054-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van den Brink, Marieke, 2011. "Scouting for talent: Appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(12), pages 2033-2040, June.
    2. Creed, Peter A. & Searle, Judy & Rogers, Mary E., 2010. "Medical specialty prestige and lifestyle preferences for medical students," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1084-1088, September.
    3. de Jong, Judith D. & Heiligers, Phil & Groenewegen, Peter P. & Hingstman, Lammert, 2006. "Why are some medical specialists working part-time, while others work full-time?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 235-248, October.
    4. Wang, Chao & Sweetman, Arthur, 2013. "Gender, family status and physician labour supply," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 17-25.
    5. Judith Semeijn & Rolf van der Velden & Hans Heijke & Cees van der Vleuten & Henny Boshuizen, 2005. "The Role of Education in Selection and Allocation in the Labour Market: An Empirical Study in the Medical Field," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 449-477.
    6. Nomura, Kyoko & Gohchi, Kengo, 2012. "Impact of gender-based career obstacles on the working status of women physicians in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1612-1616.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.