IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Medical specialty prestige and lifestyle preferences for medical students

Listed author(s):
  • Creed, Peter A.
  • Searle, Judy
  • Rogers, Mary E.
Registered author(s):

    In the context of doctor shortages and mal-distributions in many Western countries, prestige and lifestyle friendliness have emerged as significant factors for medical students when they choose a medical specialty. In this study, we surveyed two samples of Australian medical students and had them rank 19 medical specialties for prestige (N = 530) and lifestyle friendliness (N = 644). The prestige rankings were generally consistent with previous ratings by physicians, lay people and advanced medical students, with surgery, internal, and intensive care medicine ranking the highest, and public health, occupational, and non-specialist hospital medicine ranking lowest. This suggests that medical students have incorporated prevailing prestige perceptions of practicing doctors and the community. Lifestyle rankings were markedly different from prestige rankings, where dermatology, general practice, and public health medicine were ranked the most lifestyle friendly, and surgery, obstetrics/gynaecology and intensive care were ranked least friendly. Student lifestyle rankings differed from physician and author-generated rankings, indicating that student preferences should be considered rather than relying on ratings created by others. Few differences were found for gender or year of study, signifying perceptions of prestige and lifestyle friendliness were consistent across the students sampled. Having access to and understanding these rankings will assist career counsellors to aid student and junior doctor decision-making and aid workforce planners to address gaps in medical specialty health services.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 71 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 6 (September)
    Pages: 1084-1088

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:6:p:1084-1088
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Rosoff, Stephen M. & Leone, Matthew C., 1991. "The public prestige of medical specialties: Overviews and undercurrents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 321-326, January.
    2. Hancock, Christine & Steinbach, Alan & Nesbitt, Thomas S. & Adler, Shelley R. & Auerswald, Colette L., 2009. "Why doctors choose small towns: A developmental model of rural physician recruitment and retention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1368-1376, November.
    3. Midttun, Linda, 2007. "Private or public? An empirical analysis of the importance of work values for work sector choice among Norwegian medical specialists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1265-1277, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Album, Dag & Westin, Steinar, 2008. "Do diseases have a prestige hierarchy? A survey among physicians and medical students," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 182-188, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:71:y:2010:i:6:p:1084-1088. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.