Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBegeny, CT
dc.contributor.authorGrossman, RC
dc.contributor.authorRyan, MK
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-22T13:46:21Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-21
dc.date.updated2022-03-22T05:10:02Z
dc.description.abstractObjective Amidst growing numbers of women in certain areas of medicine (eg, general practice/primary care), yet their continued under-representation in others (eg, surgical specialties), this study examines (1) whether medical professionals mistakenly infer that women are now broadly well represented, overestimating women’s true representation in several different areas and roles; and (2) whether this overestimation of women’s representation predicts decreased support for gender equality initiatives in the field, in conjunction with one’s own gender. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting UK-based medical field. Participants 425 UK medical consultants/general practitioners and trainees (ST/CT1+/SHO/Registrar); 47% were female. Main outcome measures Estimates of women’s representation in different areas/roles within medicine, examined as a composite estimate and individually; and a multi-item measure of support for gender-based initiatives in medicine. Results Medical professionals tended to overestimate women’s true representation in several different areas of medicine (general practice, medical specialties, surgical specialties) and in various roles (consultants/general practitioners, trainees, medical school graduates). Moreover, these erroneous estimates predicted a decreased willingness to support gender-based initiatives, particularly among men in the field: composite overestimation*respondent gender interaction, B=−0.04, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.01, p=0.01. Specifically, while female respondents’ (over)estimates were unrelated to their level of support (B=0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02, p=0.92), male respondents’ tendency to overestimate the proportion of women in medicine predicted lower support for gender-based initiatives (B=−0.04, 95% CI −0.06 to −0.02, p<0.001). Conclusions While some progress has been made in gender representation in the medical field, this research illustrates that there are still barriers to gender equality efforts and identifies who within the field is focally maintaining these barriers. It is those individuals (particularly men) who overestimate the true progress that has been made in women’s representation who are at highest risk of undermining it.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Council (ERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMedical Research Council (MRC)en_GB
dc.format.extente054769-e054769
dc.identifier.citationVol. 12 (3), article e054769en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054769
dc.identifier.grantnumberERC-CoG 725128en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberMR/T007974/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/129122
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-4734-8840 (Begeny, Christopher T)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://osf.io/hrm63/en_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.en_GB
dc.titleOverestimating women’s representation in medicine: a survey of medical professionals’ estimates and their(un)willingness to support gender equality initiativesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-03-22T13:46:21Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data underlying the findings described in this article are available at the Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hrm63/).en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Open, 12(3)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-01-28
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03-21
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-03-22T08:58:24Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-03-22T13:46:39Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-03-21


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.