Gender Differences and Themes in Peer Nominations for Chief Resident: a Qualitative Analysis

Lyons, Michael E. G.; Martinchek, Michelle; Lyons, Patrick G.; Boike, Justin R.; McConville, John F.; Farnan, Jeanne M.

doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05221-1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Our findings are, therefore, important because the subversive nature of gender roles and expectations has the potential to heavily influence career development, confidence, mobility, and leadership opportunities but may not show up in standard measures. 1,2,4–6,18,19,21–23,34,35…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gender equity in residency training has garnered recent attention, with multiple studies demonstrating that women trainees are systematically disadvantaged and underrated on workplace-based assessments. 1–9 However, these findings are not consistent across specialties or programs, as some studies report finding no such differences. 10,11 With the shift to competency-based medical education, there is a renewed focus on gender bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dressing the Part: Gender Differences in Residents’ Experiences of Feedback in Internal Medicine

Billick¹,

Rassos²,

Ginsburg³

2022

Academic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeMultiple studies demonstrate that assessment of residents differs by gender, yet little is known about how these differences are experienced by women and men. The authors sought to understand whether the experience of being assessed and receiving feedback differs between men and women internal medicine (IM) residents and how women respond to these experiences. MethodA constructivist grounded theory approach to data collection and interpretation was used. The authors invited all IM residents in postgraduate years 1-3 at the University of Toronto to participate in semistructured focus groups (August-October 2019). Twentytwo residents participated (8 men, 14 women). Focus groups were divided by gender and training level.

show abstract