Personality Types of Medical Students in Terms of Their Choice of Medical Specialty: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on personality types among doctors reveals its impact on medical specialty choices, suggesting that considering personality in career planning may enhance work satisfaction and reduce burnout risks. OBJECTIVE: This study, encompassing 2104 medical students, explores how personality types, traits, and gender relate to specialty preferences. METHODS: Participants of this study were medical students from various universities in Poland. The study surveyed 2104 participants. Each participant completed a general questionnaire and a NERIS Type Explorer personality test, based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator inventory and the "Big Five" personality traits concept. The questionnaire was distributed on social media groups for medical students from all Polish universities. An exploratory statistical analysis was performed to find relationships. For each tested relationship a Fisher exact test was conducted and the significance level was P<.05. Each test resulted in a P value and odds ratio (OR) with a CI. To ensure we included undecided students and obtained meaningful data, we allowed participants to select up to three medical specialties from the 77 available in Poland at the time of the study. RESULTS: The findings unveil significant relationships between gender, personality types, traits, and specialty preferences. Women tended to favor Neonatology (OR 9.15, 95% CI 3.02-45.46), while men leaned toward Orthopedics and traumatology of the locomotor system (OR 7.53, 95% CI 4.87-11.94). Extroverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Prospecting, and Turbulent students showed a heightened interest in Psychiatry (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.64-3.01), whereas Introverted, Observant, Feeling, Judging, and Turbulent types favored Family Medicine (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.08-4.24) and Pediatrics (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.51-2.99). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this research establishes a link between personality and medical specialty selection. Taking into account the significant role of personality traits, it should be considered to integrate them into the process of selecting a medical career or designing a medical curriculum. This approach may allow for the customization of programs to match students' traits, thereby cultivating improved clinical communication skills, fostering interprofessional collaboration and ultimately enhancing treatment outcomes and professional fulfillment among physicians. The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted on medical students, who lack the full knowledge of the work as a specific specialist. A study surveying medical doctors with longer internships across different wards could be conducted to check for any variabilities. Moreover, there are other significant factors that influence one's medical specialty choice. Certainly, this area could be further explored.
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 | 0.067 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".