Specialty disrespect in the medical learning environment: What is known and how can we intervene? A scoping review: BEME review no. 93.

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jeffrey M Weinfeld, Kathryn M Hart, Andrea P Cammack, Charles S Dorris, Tyrel Powell, Susan M Cheng, Brendan Egan, Yadana Khin, Xerxeser Kayode, Jordan Bui
{"title":"Specialty disrespect in the medical learning environment: What is known and how can we intervene? A scoping review: BEME review no. 93.","authors":"Jeffrey M Weinfeld, Kathryn M Hart, Andrea P Cammack, Charles S Dorris, Tyrel Powell, Susan M Cheng, Brendan Egan, Yadana Khin, Xerxeser Kayode, Jordan Bui","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2025.2503377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Specialty disrespect or badmouthing is an aspect of the hidden curriculum that can inappropriately affect medical student specialty choice. The authors sought to map the breadth and depth of knowledge on this topic and identify existing interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted by systematically searching several databases, grey literature, and hand-searching reference lists. English-language reports were included from any country through September 2024. Two authors screened each record for eligibility, coded and extracted data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-three reports were included in further analysis. Many terms were used to describe specialty disrespect, with badmouthing being the most common. Clinical faculty and non-primary care specialties were common sources of badmouthing and medical students were the most frequent recipients. Learners often encountered specialty shaming and perceived specialty hierarchies. Causes of disrespect included bias and stereotyping. Specialty disrespect was one of many factors impacting specialty choice. Few reports included implemented interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Specialty disrespect is a worldwide phenomenon negatively impacting the learning environment and specialty choice. It is experienced by trainees in many fields, though it disproportionately impacts primary care specialties. Given the dearth of published interventions, future work should identify and assess responses to this issue.[Box: see text].</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2503377","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Specialty disrespect or badmouthing is an aspect of the hidden curriculum that can inappropriately affect medical student specialty choice. The authors sought to map the breadth and depth of knowledge on this topic and identify existing interventions.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted by systematically searching several databases, grey literature, and hand-searching reference lists. English-language reports were included from any country through September 2024. Two authors screened each record for eligibility, coded and extracted data.

Results: Eighty-three reports were included in further analysis. Many terms were used to describe specialty disrespect, with badmouthing being the most common. Clinical faculty and non-primary care specialties were common sources of badmouthing and medical students were the most frequent recipients. Learners often encountered specialty shaming and perceived specialty hierarchies. Causes of disrespect included bias and stereotyping. Specialty disrespect was one of many factors impacting specialty choice. Few reports included implemented interventions.

Conclusions: Specialty disrespect is a worldwide phenomenon negatively impacting the learning environment and specialty choice. It is experienced by trainees in many fields, though it disproportionately impacts primary care specialties. Given the dearth of published interventions, future work should identify and assess responses to this issue.[Box: see text].

医学学习环境中的专业不尊重:什么是已知的,我们如何干预?范围审查:BEME审查号。93.
背景:专业不尊重或诋毁是隐性课程的一个方面,可以不恰当地影响医学生的专业选择。作者试图绘制关于这一主题的知识的广度和深度,并确定现有的干预措施。方法:系统检索多个数据库、灰色文献和手工检索参考文献表,进行范围综述。截至2024年9月,所有国家的英语报告都包括在内。两位作者筛选每条记录的资格,编码并提取数据。结果:83例报告纳入进一步分析。许多术语被用来描述对专业的不尊重,其中最常见的是说坏话。临床教师和非初级保健专业是口碑的常见来源,医学生是最常见的接受者。学习者经常会遇到专业羞耻感和专业等级感。不尊重的原因包括偏见和刻板印象。专业不尊重是影响专业选择的诸多因素之一。很少有报告包括实施的干预措施。结论:专业不尊重是一种世界性的现象,对学习环境和专业选择产生负面影响。许多领域的实习生都经历过这种情况,尽管它对初级保健专业的影响不成比例。鉴于缺乏已发表的干预措施,未来的工作应确定和评估对这一问题的反应。[方框:见文本]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信