Resident and Fellow Perspectives on Family Planning and Building During Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".