Prevalence of Harassment and Discrimination Among 1996 Medical School Graduates: A Survey of Eight US Schools

Mangus, Richard S.; Hawkins, Claire; Miller, Michael J.

doi:10.1001/jama.280.9.851

Cited by 35 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is lower than the high percentages (70% or more) reported in most of these studies (Sheehan et al 1990;Silver & Glicken 1990;Wolf et al 1991;Baldwin et al 1991;Richman et al 1992;Uhari et al 1994; Association of American Medical Colleges 1996) but higher than results reported by other two studies (Magnus et al 1998;Recupero et al 2004) who reported less than 50% of student mistreatment. The occurrence of mistreatment reported by the third year students was clearly higher than mistreatment reported by the second year students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Many studies have been conducted to assess the prevalence of university student mistreatment (Sheehan et al 1990;Silver & Glicken 1990;Wolf et al 1991;Baldwin et al 1991;Richman et al 1992;Uhari et al 1994; Association of American Medical Colleges 1996; Magnus et al 1998;Recupero et al 2004). Unfortunately, no similar studies were published in Jordan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More than half of our students (56%) reported some form of mistreatment from professors or laboratory technicians. These discriminating behaviors from professors or laboratory technicians are known to affect the quality of work performed by students, influence their carrier decisions and have other undetermined long term consequences (Silver 1982;Rosenberg & Silver 1984;Wolf et al 1991;Richman et al 1992;Lebenthal et al 1996;Magnus et al 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Action to deal with these problems is urgently needed. studies (Sheehan et al 1990;Silver & Glicken 1990;Wolf et al 1991;Baldwin et al 1991;Richman et al 1992;Uhari et al 1994;Association of American Medical Colleges 1996;Magnus et al 1998) reported the prevalence of student mistreatment to be greater than 70% while two studies (Magnus et al 1998;Recupero et al 2004) reported the prevalence of student mistreatment to be less than 50%.…”

Section: Practice Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various forms of mistreatment have been reported in universities in different countries (Sheehan et al 1990;Silver & Glicken 1990;Wolf et al 1991;Baldwin et al 1991;Richman et al 1992;Uhari et al 1994;Magnus et al 1998; Association of American Medical Colleges 1996; Recupero et al 2004). A big difference in the percentages of student mistreatment were reported in these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prevalence of mistreatment and justice of grading system in five health related faculties in Jordan University of Science and Technology

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many Jordanian university students complain of the behavior of some teaching staff. Also, they complain of the grading systems in universities. Aim: This study concerns the occurrence of different forms of student mistreatment and student mistrust of the grading system in the Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) as an example of universities in Jordan. Method: A total of 500 students in five health related faculties in JUST responded to a questionnaire. Results: Our results were as follow: (i) 61% of the students had experienced at least one form of mistreatment; (ii) perceived mistreatment most often (52%) had taken the form of psychological mistreatment (shouting and humiliation); (iii) other forms of mistreatment such as physical harm (32%), mistreatment related to religion (36%), mistreatment related to external appearance (35%), sexual harassment (33%) and mistreatment related to specialty (29%) were also common; (iv) with the exception of mistreatment related to specialty which was high among the nursing students, perceived mistreatment did not vary significantly between the different faculties; (v) the male students (66%) complain more than female students (56%); (vi) perceived mistreatment was exceptionally high among the Israeli Arabs, 83% compared to 59% for the Jordanians and 65% for other nonJordanian Arabs; (vii) fellow students (44%), professors (37%) and laboratory technicians (19%) were cited as major sources of mistreatment. Many students (66%) believe that grading system in JUST is unfair. Ninety seven percent of the Israeli Arabs did not trust the grading system compared to 64% of the Jordanians and 66% of the non-Jordanian Arabs. Conclusions: This study suggests that, feelings of mistreatment among university students is strong while their trust of the university grading system is low. Perceived mistreatment and an unfair grading system may be a major source of stress among our students and may affect the process of teaching and learning in our country. This should alert the university administration to face these issues and try to solve them.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practice Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prevalence of mistreatment and justice of grading system in five health related faculties in Jordan University of Science and Technology

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of Discrimination, Bias, and Inclusion in a United States Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Program

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEMedical trainees frequently experience discrimination. Understanding their experiences is essential to improving learning environments. OBJECTIVE To characterize trainee experiences of discrimination and inclusion to inform graduate medical education (GME) policies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This qualitative study used an anonymous telephone interview technique to gather data from hematology and oncology fellows. All current trainees and recent graduates were eligible. Interviews were conducted anonymously with interviewer and participant in separate locations and recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed in an iterative process into major themes using a general inductive analysis approach. Demographic information was obtained via anonymous survey. Data collection and analysis were conducted from July 2018 to November 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Emergent themes illustrating bias and inclusion in a GME program. RESULTS Among 34 fellows and recent graduates who were approached for this study, 20 consented and 17 were interviewed. Of those interviewed, 10 were men, and the median (range) age was 32 (29-53) years. The racial and ethnic distribution included 6 Asian individuals, 2 Black individuals, 3 Hispanic individuals, 2 multiracial individuals, and 4 White individuals. All fellows reported having experienced and/or witnessed discriminatory behavior. The themes elucidated were(1) foreign fellows perceived as outsiders, (2) US citizens feeling alien at home, (3) gender roletyping, (4) perception of futility of reporting, (5) diversity and inclusion, and (6) coping strategies.The majority of reported biases were from patients. Only 1 trainee reported any incidents. Reasons for not reporting were difficulty characterizing discrimination and doubt action would occur.Participants reported that diversity of cotrainees, involvement in committees, and open discussions promoted inclusivity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, reports of discriminatory behavior toward trainees were common. The anonymous hotline methodology cultivated a safe environment for candid discussions. These findings suggest that GME programs should assess their learning climate regarding bias and inclusivity anonymously and develop processes to support trainees.

show abstract

Gender Issues in Clinical Dental Education

Tiwana

Kutcher

Phillips

et al. 2014

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spring 2011, a study was initiated to investigate the nature and extent of gender issues in clinical dental education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry. Surveys were sent to 236 dental students in the second, third, and fourth years; eighty-six (36.4 percent) responded. Surveys were also sent to seventy-one full-time dental faculty members who had clinical contact with students, and thirty-four (47.9 percent) responded. Of the student respondents, ifty-one were female and thirty-ive were male; the faculty respondents were ten women and twenty-four men. A signiicantly greater proportion of female than male student respondents reported that issues related to gender affected clinical training. The female students also responded that mentorship was less available and less in content for them compared to males, and signiicantly more female than male students reported lower self-conidence in clinical settings. Among faculty respondents, a higher proportion of women than men reported insuficient awareness of gender issues. These faculty members also reported thinking that female students showed more empathy toward patients than males. Both faculty and student respondents said that female faculty members received less respect from students than did male faculty members. Forty-eight percent of the students reported experiencing or witnessing genderbased prejudice in clinical settings, and 7.0 percent reported experiencing or witnessing unwelcome sexual advances or conduct. A more robust study to include other dental institutions is needed. With conirmation of speciic gender issues, corrective measures could be recommended to improve the climate for both females and males in the clinical component of dental education.

show abstract

Prevalence of Harassment and Discrimination Among 1996 Medical School Graduates: A Survey of Eight US Schools

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Prevalence of mistreatment and justice of grading system in five health related faculties in Jordan University of Science and Technology

Prevalence of mistreatment and justice of grading system in five health related faculties in Jordan University of Science and Technology

Assessment of Discrimination, Bias, and Inclusion in a United States Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Program

Gender Issues in Clinical Dental Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About