Are There Barriers for Professional Development of Women Dentists? A Qualitative Study in Saudi Arabia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, there is an upward trend in the number of women applying to dental schools and entering the profession of dentistry. Women dentists aim to advance their careers; however, differences exist between men and women dentists regarding leadership positions and work titles. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women usually occupy lower ranked positions than men in the Saudi public sector, and they are, therefore, paid less than their male counterparts. This study aimed to explore the possible barriers to Saudi women dentists' professional advancement using a qualitative descriptive study design. Specifically, semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 women practicing dentistry in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the data were interpreted using qualitative content analysis (NVivo 11; QRS International). The results revealed 4 challenges that might delay the participants' career development. These include family-related challenges, sociocultural challenges, workplace challenges, and transportation issues. From this perspective, some perceived barriers to the professional development of women dentists were found that might not be unique to Saudi Arabia, and the article's suggestions and recommendations aim to minimize the effects of these barriers impeding women's advancement in dentistry in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study makes an important contribution to knowledge on this topic. These results will aid policy makers' efforts to create supportive work environments through gender-specific incentives that meet the current professional and family needs of women dentists, particularly those in Saudi Arabia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it