The role of gender as a barrier to the professional development of psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite efforts toward greater gender equality in clinical and academic psychiatry in recent years, more information is needed about the challenges in professional development within psychiatry, and how these may vary with gender. METHODS: A cross-sectional 27-item online survey was conducted with psychiatrists and psychiatric trainee members of the European Psychiatric Association. RESULTS: A total of 561 psychiatrists and psychiatric trainees from 35 European countries participated representing a response rate of 52.8% for women and 17.7% for men from a total sample of 1,580. The specific challenges that women face in their professional development fall into two categories. One comprised women's negative attitudes concerning their abilities in self-promotion and networking. The other identified environmental barriers related to lack of opportunity and support and gender discrimination. Compared to men, women reported higher rates of gender discrimination in terms of professional advancement. Women were less likely to agree that their institutions had regular activities promoting inclusion, diversity, and training to address implicit gender bias. Working in high-income countries compared to middle-income countries relates to reporting institutional support for career progression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are an open call to hospital leaders, deans of medical schools, and department chairs to increase efforts to eradicate bias against women and create safer, inclusive, and respectful environments for all psychiatrists, a special call to women psychiatrists to be aware of inner tendencies to avoid self-promotion and networking and to think positively and confidently about themselves and their abilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".