↓ Skip to main content

First and second year medical students identify and self-stereotype more as doctors than as students: a questionnaire study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
First and second year medical students identify and self-stereotype more as doctors than as students: a questionnaire study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1049-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan Burford, Harriet E. S. Rosenthal-Stott

Abstract

The emergence of medical students' professional identity is important. This paper considers this in a snapshot of the early years of undergraduate medical education. From the perspective of social identity theory, it also considers self-stereotyping, the extent to which individuals associate with attributes identified as typical of groups. Paper questionnaires were completed by first and second year medical students following teaching sessions at the beginning (October) and end (April) of the academic year. Questionnaires consisted of scales measuring the strength and importance of identity and self-stereotyping, referent to 'doctors' and 'students'. Linear mixed effects regression considered longitudinal and cross-sectional effects of progress through the course, and differences in responses to 'doctor' and 'student' measures. In October, responses were received from 99% (n = 102) and 75% (n = 58) of first and second year cohorts respectively, and in April from 81% (n = 83) and 73% (n = 56). Response rates were over 95% of those present. Linear mixed effects regression found that all 'doctor'-referent measures were higher than 'student' measures. Strength of identity and self-stereotyping decreased between beginning and end of the year (across both groups). Men indicated lower importance of identity than women, also across both groups. There were no differences between year groups. Self-stereotyping was predicted more by importance of identification with a group than by strength of identification. Findings reinforce observations that medical students identify strongly as doctors from early in their studies, and that this identification is greater than as students. Decreases over time are surprising, but may be explained by changing group salience towards the end of the academic year. The lack of a gender effect on strength of identification contrasts with the literature, but may reflect students' lack of 'performance' of professional identity, while the effect on importance is speculated to be linked to social identity complexity. Identification with professional group may have implications for how medical schools treat students. The findings on self-stereotyping have relevance to recruitment if applicant populations are limited to those already internalising a stereotype. There may be consequences for the wellbeing of those who feel they cannot fulfil stereotypes when in training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Master 8 8%
Lecturer 8 8%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 35 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,222,401
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,604
of 3,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,236
of 326,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#58
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.