Prevalence of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination in resident physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination (IHD) reported by resident physicians during their training, to identify factors associated with reported IHD, and to identify adverse sequalae associated with IHD. Methods: This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Eight electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional studies reporting the prevalence of IHD among resident physicians. Prevalence estimates were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis, with variance stabilization using Tukey double arcsine transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed with forest plots, the I2 statistic, subgroup analyses, and multivariate meta-regression. Results: 52 cross-sectional studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of IHD was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.0-77.1). Verbal, physical, and sexual IHD were the most common forms of IHD reported by residents. Training status (55.5%), gender (41.7%), and ethnicity (20.6%) were the most commonly cited risk factors for IHD. The most common sources of IHD were relatives/friends of patients, nurses, and patients (cited by 50.7%, 47.8, and 41.7%, respectively). Conclusions: The prevalence of IHD among resident physicians is high and associated with multiple negative outcomes, including burnout. Despite the availability of multiple anti-IHD interventions, reports of IHD appear to be rising in many residency programs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".