| Literature DB >> 30633775 |
Puspita Hossain1, Rajat Das Gupta1, Phyoe YarZar2, Mohamed Salieu Jalloh3, Nishat Tasnim4, Ayesha Afrin5, Nahitun Naher1, Md Tarek Hossain6, Taufique Joarder7, Syed Masud Ahmed1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bangladesh is currently faced with an emerging scenario of increased number of female physicians in the health workforce which has health system implications. For a health system to attract and retain female physicians, information is needed regarding their motivation to choose medical profession, real-life challenges encountered in home and workplaces, propensity to choose a few particular specialties, and factors leading to drop-out from the system. This exploratory mixed-methods study attempted to fill-in this knowledge gap and help the policy makers in designing a gender-sensitive health system.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30633775 PMCID: PMC6329528 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Conceptual framework.
Summary of the methods, respondents, objectives addressed and some variables/sample questions.
| Methods | Respondents | Objectives addressed | Variables/Sample questions asked |
|---|---|---|---|
| (self-administered questionnaire) | Final year female medical students (n = 315) | To find out factors motivating the female medical students to enroll in medical colleges and choosing particular specialties; health system implications | Socio-demographic and economic characteristics; factors motivating enrollment; factors influencing career choices and specialty preferences; drop-outs and shortage of faculty in pre-, para-, and non-clinical subjects |
| a) Focus Group Discussion (FGD) | 2 Sessions of FGD done with 11 female medical students | To find out details of challenges faced by the female students | |
| b) In-depth Interview (IDI) | Final year female medical students (n = 16) | To find out details of challenges faced by the female students | |
| Parents of female medical students (n = 5) | To find out the parent’s opinion about preferring medicine as a field of study for their daughters | ||
| c) In-depth Interview (IDI) | In-service trainee physicians (n = 10) | To explore the real-life experiences of the physicians in service |
Codes and sub-codes used for qualitative data.
| Codes | Sub-codes | Type of code |
|---|---|---|
| Motivating factors for parents | • Helping the people | • A-priori |
| • Dignity/ Prestige | • A-priori | |
| • Financial reason | • A-priori | |
| • Work independently | • Inductive | |
| • Role model in the family | • A-priori | |
| • Having a physician in the family | • Inductive | |
| Challenges for women working in the medical sector | • Challenges faced by medical students and intern doctors | • A-priori |
| • Coping up with the obstacles | • A-priori | |
| • Perception of dropout among students and doctors | • Inductive | |
| • Perception about effect of drop out | • A-priori | |
| • Methods of reducing drop out of female from health workforce | • A-priori | |
| Reasons for preferred place to work | • Access to social and family networks | • A-priori |
| • Adventure & recreational opportunities | • Inductive | |
| • Access to Information and Communication Technology | • Inductive | |
| • Road Infrastructure | • Inductive | |
| • Community belonging | • Inductive | |
| • Good working condition, including better infrastructure and equipment and good hygienic condition | • A-priori | |
| • Workplace security | • A-priori | |
| • Opportunities for children | • Inductive | |
| • Opportunities for own continuing education | • A-priori | |
| • Opportunities for partner/spouse | • Inductive | |
| • Rural lifestyle | • A-priori | |
| Reasons for preferred sub specialties | • Gender distribution and Opportunities | • A-priori |
| • Working Environment | • A-priori | |
| • Exposure to Technical Skills | • Inductive | |
| • Female role in Bridging Specialty Gap | • Inductive | |
| • Social and Cultural reasons | • A-priori |
Fig 2Gender distribution of physician (2006–2015), cumulative number.
Fig 3Distribution of female students by selected medical colleges (2011–2016).
Fig 4Distribution of female physicians according to specialization (2006–2015).
Socio economic characteristics of the respondents (N = 315).
| Variable | Female medical students | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public | Private | Total | ||
| N = 207 n (%) | N = 108 n (%) | N = 315 n (%) | ||
| 22.71±0.80 | 22.46±0.86 | 0.01 ( | ||
| Urban | 187 (90.3) | 106 (98.1) | 293 (93.0) | 0.01 |
| Rural | 20 (9.7) | 2 (1.9) | 22 (7.0) | |
| ≤8 years of schooling | 5 (2.4) | 2 (1.9) | 7 (2.2) | 0.11 |
| 9–12 years of schooling | 38 (18.4) | 11 (10.2) | 49 (15.6) | |
| Graduates | 64 (30.9) | 29 (26.9) | 93 (29.5) | |
| Postgraduates | 100 (48.3) | 66 (61.0) | 166 (52.7) | |
| ≤8 years of schooling | 11 (5.3) | 3 (2.8) | 14 (4.4) | <0.001 |
| 9–12 years of schooling | 89 (43) | 28 (25.9) | 117 (37.1) | |
| Graduates | 53 (25.6) | 30 (27.8) | 83 (26.4) | |
| Postgraduates | 54 (26.1) | 47 (43.5) | 101 (32.1) | |
| Medical doctor | 17 (8.2) | 15 (13.9) | 32 (10.2) | 0.27 |
| Business | 42 (20.3) | 29 (26.9) | 71 (22.5) | |
| Service | 138 (66.7) | 59 (54.6) | 197 (62.5) | |
| Others | 10 (4.8) | 5 (1.6) | 15 (4.8) | |
| Medical doctor | 7 (3.4) | 9 (8.3) | 16 (5.1) | 0.05 |
| Business | 7 (3.4) | 7 (6.5) | 14 (4.4) | |
| Service | 58 (28) | 19 (17.6) | 77 (24.4) | |
| Housewife | 129 (62.3) | 67 (62) | 196 (62.2) | |
| Others | 6 (3) | 6 (5.6) | 12 (3.9) | |
| <40,000 | 63 (30.4) | 9 (8.3) | 72 (22.9) | <0.01 |
| 40,000–100,000 | 132 (63.8) | 69 (63.9) | 201 (63.9) | |
| >100,000 | 12 (5.8) | 30 (27.8) | 42 (13.2) | |
Female medical students’ reported reasons for choosing medicine as a field of study (N = 315).
| Type of Medical College | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public | Private | Total | ||
| N = 207 n (%) | N = 108 n (%) | N = 315 n (%) | ||
| Opportunity to help people | 195 (94.2) | 100(92.6) | 295(93.7) | 0.57 |
| Respect earned | 199 (96.1) | 97(89.8) | 296(94.0) | |
| Noble profession | 192 (92.8) | 94(87.0) | 286(90.8) | 0.09 |
| Childhood dream | 151 (72.0) | 80 (74.7) | 231 (73.3) | 0.83 |
| Study science | 118 (57.0) | 75(69.4) | 193(61.2) | |
| Job security | 135 (65.3) | 70(64.8) | 205(65.2) | 0.89 |
| Financial security | 140 (67.6) | 70(64.8) | 210(66.6) | 0.61 |
| Parental pressure | 89 (43.0) | 43 (39.8) | 132 (41.9) | 0.58 |
| Parents are doctors | 19 (9.18) | 18 (16.7) | 37 (11.8) | 0.05 |
| Influence of friends/relatives/role model | 80 (38.7) | 35 (32.4) | 115 (36.5) | 0.27 |
| Illness of friends/ relatives | 41 (19.8) | 18 (16.7) | 59 (18.7) | 0.50 |
| Social status | 143 (69.1) | 66(61.1) | 209 (66.4) | 0.15 |
| Social competition | 92 (44.4) | 37 (34.2) | 129 (41.0) | 0.08 |
| Contribution to society | 174 (84.1) | 92 (85.2) | 266 (84.4) | 0.79 |
| Marriage value | 36 (17.4) | 18 (16.7) | 54 (17.1) | 0.87 |
Female medical students’ reported preference of specialties (N = 315).
| Female medical students and intern doctors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred specialty | Public | Private | Total | |
| N = 207 n (%) | N = 108 n (%) | N = 315 n (%) | ||
| Surgery | 46 (22.2) | 39 (36.1) | 85 (27.0) | |
| Obstetrics and Gynaecology | 66 (31.9) | 20 (18.5) | 86 (27.3) | |
| Medicine | 42 (20.3) | 21 (19.4) | 63 (20.0) | 0.86 |
| Paediatrics | 37 (17.9) | 10 (9.3) | 47 (14.9) | |
| Basic Science | 6 (2.9) | 5 (4.6) | 11 (3.5) | 0.52 |
| Clinical Research | 2 (1.0) | 5 (4.6) | 7 (2.2) | 0.05 |
| Public Health | 1 (0.5) | 5 (4.6) | 6 (1.9) | |
| Not Yet Decided | 7 (3.4) | 3 (2.8) | 10 (3.2) | 0.53 |