Resident and Fellow Perspectives on Family Planning and Building During Training
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Physicians, especially surgeons, delay family building, and face age-related complications of pregnancy. Objective: To explore factors that are associated with family building decisions among residents and fellows and to understand their thoughts on accessing family building supports, workplace culture, and attitudes toward family planning. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted from May to August 2022 at postgraduate training sites across Ontario, Canada. Participants included 29 postgraduate learners. Purposive sampling from 80 eligible trainees was used to ensure diverse demographics, including sex, specialty, and institution. Semi-structured individual interviews lasting 30 to 90 minutes were conducted over a virtual platform. Participants were asked to share their thoughts and experiences on family planning in a medical career, family building goals, the role of mentorship, and knowledge of current family planning supports. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes associated with residents' perception of family planning within the context of a medical career. Results: Twenty-nine trainees, ages 25 to 37 years old (22 [75.9%] were female, 26 [89.7%] were heterosexual; median [range] age, 30 [25-37] years) from various institutions took part in this study. The participants included both 24 residents (82.8%) and 5 fellows (17.2%) and 8 (27.6%) were from surgical specialties, 3 (10.3%) from pediatrics and subspecialties, 4 (13.8%) from internal medicine and subspecialties, 2 (6.9%) from obstetrics and gynecology, 3 (10.3%) family medicine, 2 (6.9%) from anesthesia, and 7 (24.1%) other medical specialties. Four themes were identified: (1) tension between role as a physician and role as a parent; (2) impact of role models and mentorship on family planning choices; (3) family building is discouraged during training, especially in surgical specialties; and (4) need for tangible family planning supports in training. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of residents' and fellows' perspectives on family building, trainees did not perceive residency and fellowship programs as supportive for individuals who want to family build during training leading to personal and professional dissonance. Trainees identified that more tangible supports, transparent information, and mentorship may improve a trainees' feeling of support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».