↓ Skip to main content

Experiences of the gender climate in clinical training – a focus group study among Swedish medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experiences of the gender climate in clinical training – a focus group study among Swedish medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0803-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emelie Kristoffersson, Jenny Andersson, Carita Bengs, Katarina Hamberg

Abstract

Research shows that medical education is characterized by unequal conditions for women and men, but there is a lack of qualitative studies investigating the social processes that enable and maintain gender inequalities that include both male and female students. In this focus group study, we therefore explored male as well as female medical students' experiences of the gender climate - i.e., how beliefs, values, and norms about gender were communicated - during clinical training and how the students dealt with these experiences. Focus group interviews were conducted with 24 medical students (nine men) at Umeå University, Sweden. The interviews were structured around personal experiences in clinical training where the participants perceived that gender had mattered. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The students described gender-stereotyped expectations, discriminatory treatment, compliments, comments, and demeaning jargon. Female students gave more personal and varied examples than the men. The students' ways of handling their experiences were marked by efforts to fit in, for example, by adapting their appearance and partaking in the prevailing jargon. They felt dependent on supervisors and staff, and due to fear of repercussions they kept silent and avoided unpleasant situations and people rather than challenging humiliating jargon or supervisors who were behaving badly. Everyday communication of gender beliefs combined with students' adaptation to stereotyped expectations and discrimination came across as fundamental features through which unequal conditions for male and female students are reproduced and maintained in the clinic. Because they are in a dependent position, it is often difficult for students to challenge problematic gender attitudes. The main responsibility for improvements, therefore, lies with medical school leadership who need to provide students and supervisors with knowledge about gendered processes, discrimination, and sexism and to organize reflection groups about the gender climate in order to improve students' opportunities to discuss their experiences, and hopefully find ways to protest and actively demand change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 36 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,220,979
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#995
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,567
of 316,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#17
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 316,695 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.