Abstract
-
Purpose
This study investigated how socio-cultural characteristics, including gender, age, socioeconomic status, religiosity, and parental education, influence the gender perceptions of medical students and how these perceptions are influenced by medical education.
-
Methods
This cross-sectional study enrolled 380 volunteer medical students who completed a questionnaire comprising sociodemographic items, the validated Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medical Scale, and the Perception of Gender Scale (PGS). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
-
Results
Mean PGS scores were significantly higher among first-semester students compared to sixth-semester students (101.94±19.40 vs. 95.52±19.83, p=0.013) and among female compared to male participants (106.51±13.28 vs. 87.71±19.94, p<0.001). Self-reported “very religious” participants demonstrated significantly lower PGS scores compared to other religious categories in both female (p<0.001) and male (p=0.002) subgroups. Gender Role Ideology towards Doctors scores showed a moderate negative correlation with PGS scores (r=–0.459, p<0.001).
-
Conclusion
Female gender, younger age, urban living, higher income, and higher levels of maternal and paternal education supported a positive gender perspective. Towards the end of medical education, gender perceptions tend to become less egalitarian. These findings highlight the potential for medical education to negatively impact gender perceptions and underscore the need for integrating gender awareness training into medical curricula to promote more equitable attitudes among future physicians.
-
Key Words: Gender, Medicine, Gender identity, Medical education, Physician-patient relations
Introduction
Gender-based distinctions form a fundamental component of human perception from early development [
1]. The concept of gender encompasses both biological sex-characterized by genetic, physiological, and hormonal differences between males and females-and social gender, which comprises culturally and socially, prescribed roles and responsibilities [
2]. Gender equality encompasses equitable participation in economic activities, equivalent rights and opportunities across all societal domains, and equal societal valuation regardless of gender identity [
3].
Gender roles encompass societal expectations regarding patterns of behavior and the allocation of tasks based on gender identity. In industrialized societies, the traditional allocation of roles has historically limited women’s activities to those categorized as “female labor.” In contrast, men have traditionally taken on career-oriented roles while shouldering household financial responsibilities [
4]. However, contemporary socioeconomic pressures, such as rising living costs and employment instability, have challenged this patriarchal role allocation [
5].
Gender significantly influences health behaviors and outcomes, impacting risk-taking, health-seeking behaviors, vulnerability to disease, and interactions with healthcare services. Women often face barriers to accessing healthcare and health information due to a complex interplay of factors, including economic dependence, sociocultural norms that reinforce patriarchal structures, and disproportionate caregiving responsibilities. Conversely, societal expectations of masculinity can lead men to take more risks, such as engaging in hazardous activities and being reluctant to seek medical attention [
6]. Furthermore, gender dynamics influence medical communication, affecting how patients present their symptoms and how healthcare providers interpret and respond to them [
7].
Gender inequalities are reflected in the discrimination women physicians experience throughout their education and careers. Due to traditional gender role constraints, women physicians often choose specialties perceived as more compatible with family responsibilities [
8].
Although the concept of the “genderless” physician is emphasized in medical ethics, this ideal ignores the fact that physicians are influenced by gendered norms and expectations due to their social and cultural contexts [
9]. This gap contributes to the lack of critical analysis of how gender biases influence doctor-patient interactions and contribute to health inequalities. Additionally, the influence of medical education on students’ gender perceptions is a topic that merits further research. This study addresses these critical gaps by exploring medical students’ gender perceptions and their attitudes toward gender in medicine, as well as the interplay between these factors.
Methods
This cross-sectional study was conducted at a medical faculty in Turkey, an area where Eastern and Western cultures coexist and traditional gender roles are prevalent. On average, women receive 8.6 years of education, and the labor force participation rate is 72.0% for men and 36.8% for women. In this traditional structure, women are expected to manage the household and care for the children, even if they are educated. Conversely, men are expected to make all family decisions, even if their wives work [
10]. Undergraduate medical students from three academic cohorts: first semester (n=280), third semester (n=267), and sixth semester (n=270) were the universe. Systematic sampling was employed using class rosters, with every third student (positions 1, 4, 7) selected for recruitment. Of 413 initially enrolled participants, 380 (92.0%) completed all survey components and were included in the final analysis. Study instruments included a sociodemographic questionnaire, the validated Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale (N-GAMS), and the Perception of Gender Scale (PGS).
The tool comprised two sections: (1) basic demographic variables including age, gender, academic semester, marital status, and geographic origin; and (2) 17 items assessing sociocultural factors potentially influencing gender perception development, including parental division of domestic labor and sibling gender composition within the family of origin.
2. The Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale
This study utilized the N-GAMS to assess medical students’ gender awareness. Developed by Verdonk et al. [
11] in 2008 and updated in 2012, the N-GAMS is a validated instrument designed to measure gender attitudes and values among medical students. The scale comprises 26 items organized into three sub-dimensions: Gender Sensitivity (GS), Gender Role Ideology towards Patients (GRI-P), and Gender Role Ideology towards Doctors (GRI-D). Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores on the GS sub-dimension indicating greater gender sensitivity, while higher scores on the GRI-P and GRI-D sub-dimensions reflect a stronger adherence to traditional gender stereotypes [
12].
Developed by Altınova and Duyan [
13] in 2013, the scale assesses individuals’ perceptions of gender roles and stereotypes. This 25-item scale employs a 5-point Likert response format (strongly agree=5 points, agree=4 points, undecided=3 points, disagree=2 points, strongly disagree =1 point), with 10 items positively worded and 15 negatively worded. The total score ranges from 25 to 125 points. The reverse-scored items (items 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 25) contain statements that represent some stereotypes that are widespread throughout Turkish society for men and women, taking into account the values and culture of Turkish society, so reverse scoring was Altınova and Duyan [
13]. Items indicative of positive gender perception were assigned higher scores. Items indicating positive gender perception are scored positively. Consequently, elevated scores on the PGS are indicative of a more favorable gender perception, signifying heightened acceptance of gender equality and reduced adherence to conventional gender roles [
13].
Statistical analyses were performed on IBM SPSS for Windows ver. 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, with categorical variables presented as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables presented as means and standard deviations. Group comparisons for continuous variables were conducted via Student t-test for paired groups and one-way analysis of variance for multiple groups. Pearson correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationships between continuous variables. The strength of correlations was interpreted based on the correlation coefficient (r) as follows: 0.00–0.24 (weak), 0.25–0.49 (moderate), 0.50–0.74 (strong), and 0.75–1.00 (very strong). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 for all analyses.
5. Ethics statement
Ethical approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine on 1 March 2019, with decision number 2019/1746. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Results
The study population (N=380) had a mean age of 21.7±2.82 years. The majority of participants were female (56.3%, n=214), and they were relatively evenly distributed across the first, third, and sixth terms of medical school (33.7%, 26.6%, and 39.7%, respectively). Internal consistency of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The N-GAMS subscales demonstrated acceptable to good reliability (GS: α=0.676; GRI-P: α=0.838; GRI-D: α=0.820), while the PGS exhibited excellent reliability (α=0.948).
The mean scores for the N-GAMS subscales were as follows: GS (21.85±5.77), GRI-P (24.22±5.94), and GRI-D (23.52±6.24). The mean PGS score was 98.30±18.96. Preliminary analysis revealed a significant association between religious beliefs and PGS scores. Specifically, students who identified as “quite religious” had significantly lower PGS scores (indicating less positive perceptions of gender) compared to those who reported being “not very religious” or having “no belief” (p<0.001). Detailed demographic associations with scale scores are presented in
Table 1.
Further analyses explored the relationship between sociocultural factors and scale scores (
Table 2). Notably, participants who expressed a desire for their spouse to earn less than them exhibited the lowest PGS scores (82.00 ±19.79, p=0.000), indicating less egalitarian gender role beliefs. Interestingly, those who preferred their spouse to earn more than them also demonstrated significantly lower PGS scores (75.80±22.59, p=0.003) compared to those who reported no preference.
To further explore the influence of gender on these relationships, we examined the interaction between participant gender, spousal income preferences, and acceptance of marrying someone with lower academic status (
Table 3).
We also investigated the relationship between the N-GAMS and PGS. A moderate negative correlation was observed between the GRI-D subscale and the PGS (r=–0.459, p<0.001). Linear regression analysis revealed that the PGS score significantly predicted N-GAMS scores, accounting for 21.1% of the variance (R2=0.211, p<0.001).
Discussion
The influence of gender perceptions on health manifests in various ways, from shaping career choices among physicians [
8] to influencing patient symptom presentation due to ingrained gender roles [
14]. Even patient satisfaction hinges on the gender of the healthcare provider, impacting surgical outcomes and psychiatric care experiences [
15,
16]. Essentially, the patient-physician dynamic is intrinsically linked to gendered perceptions. This study contributes significantly to the field as it explores the factors shaping gender perceptions and attitudes towards equality among medical students at the crucial outset of their training, a domain with limited research in our context.
This study found no significant difference in gender awareness among students in their first, third, and sixth semesters, as measured by the N-GAMS. This finding contrasts with Morais et al. [
17], who reported increased gender sensitivity with progressive medical education years in a study of 1,048 medical students using the same scale. The discrepancy highlights the ongoing debate in the literature regarding the relationship between medical education and gender awareness. While some studies suggest a positive correlation between educational level and gender awareness, others demonstrate no such association [
18,
19].
Published in 2020, the National Core Curriculum is required reading for all medical faculties in the country. It includes gender equality in the section on discrimination, bias, and stigma, under the Behavioral, Social and, Human Sciences heading [
20]. Consequently, all medical faculties organize courses on the subject. However, these courses are generally taught at a theoretical level and do not seem to influence the attitudes and behaviors of learners. Gender equality that is not internalized is undermined by deeply rooted gender roles.
Interestingly, medical students in this study exhibited higher mean PGS scores (98.30±18.96) than those reported in studies of students from other faculties (92.45±15.63 and 91.36±16.83) [
21,
22]. Prospective physicians’ perceptions of gender were more positive than those of students in other faculties. However, a significant difference emerged between third- and sixth-semester students, with the latter demonstrating a more negative (i.e., traditional) gender perception, which contradicts previous research suggesting that gender perception improves with increased education [
17,
18].
The decline in gender perception scores aligns with the observed influence of age. While gender sensitivity, as measured by the N-GAMS, remained stable across age groups, PGS scores indicated a shift towards traditionalism with increasing age. This situation can be explained by an increase in leaving home, finding a partner, and getting married as age increases, particularly in the final year of medical school. As people start their new lives, societal influences become more dominant, and higher education and economic independence often do not enable women or men to escape traditional gender roles. This finding is consistent with Pınar et al. [
23], who observed a similar association between age and traditional thinking.
We believe that it is important to shed light on this issue from a different perspective that is not in the public eye. The term “hidden curriculum,” defined as “the adoption of generally accepted understandings, traditions, rituals, and taken-for-granted aspects of medical education influenced by daily life practices” is closely related to the formation of gender perceptions in medicine [
24]. Unlike the formal curriculum, which takes place in the classroom, the hidden curriculum is acquired through socialization. Students construct the “cultural process” of medical education as they internalize the behaviors, attitudes, and values modeled by instructors and the clinical environment [
25]. Furthermore, several studies have documented that the hidden curriculum is often responsible for negative changes in students’ progress [
26]. This hidden curriculum can also explain the negative shift in gender perception that occurs in semester 6 of the study. Therefore, positive constructions of gender perception in medicine should include not only students, but also all clinical staff.
This study confirms that male medical students are more accepting of gender stereotypes than their female counterparts, as evidenced by their scores on the N-GAMS and PGS scales. In contrast, female students exhibit more egalitarian and positive gender perceptions, consistent with existing literature showing that women generally exhibit higher gender sensitivity while men tend to have more traditional attitudes. This difference may be attributed to the fact that traditional stereotypes often include more positive attributes for men, which could reinforce these attitudes [
17-
19]. Similarly, marital status did not appear to significantly affect gender perception, consistent with the findings of Gönenç et al. [
27].
Individuals who had primarily lived in urban areas had a more positive perception of gender compared to those who had lived primarily in rural areas, consistent with the literature [
28]. However, consistent with Pınar et al. [
23], the effect of living in a nuclear or extended family was not significant. Additionally, there are studies documenting a more positive gender perspective among individuals with extended families [
27,
29].
This study found a positive association between maternal education level and gender perception, particularly regarding perceptions towards patients, which appears to corroborate existing research highlighting the role of maternal education in shaping more egalitarian gender attitudes [
19,
29]. Analyzing the employment status of the mother revealed that having a mother who had never worked was associated with negative gender perceptions on both scales.
Regarding the father’s influence, his education and employment status did not significantly affect general gender perceptions. However, Zeybek and Kurşun [
28] associated an increase in the father’s level of education with positive gender perceptions.
Pınar et al. [
23] found no association between income level and gender perception. On the other hand, Altuntaş and Altınova [
18] observed more positive gender perceptions among individuals from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, a finding echoed by Zeybek and Kurşun [
28] in their study of medical students. The study presents a nuanced perspective. While income level did not directly correlate with overall gender perception, the observed increase in positive perceptions towards physicians with increasing income may suggest a move away from traditional gender stereotypes within the medical context.
The study explored whether greater paternal involvement in domestic tasks, potentially fostering a more egalitarian environment during childhood, would influence participants’ gender perceptions. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, no significant association was found between paternal participation in household chores and more positive gender perceptions.
Our study also examined the relationship between religious beliefs and gender perception. Interestingly, individuals who identified as more religious exhibited more traditional gender perceptions [
30], although their religiosity did not significantly impact their scores on the N-GAMS subscales, which focus on gender dynamics within the patient-physician relationship.
Furthermore, the study explored the interplay between gender perceptions and economic expectations within spousal relationships. Female participants who expressed indifference towards their spouse’s income level (“I don’t care”) demonstrated more egalitarian gender perceptions than those who preferred their spouse to earn either more or less than themselves. For male participants, desiring a lower-earning spouse aligned with more traditional gender perspectives. Conversely, men who were indifferent to their spouse’s income exhibited more egalitarian views. Overall, the responses regarding spousal income expectations revealed intriguing gender differences. The majority of participants expressing a preference for a lower-earning spouse were male, while most desiring a higher-earning spouse were female. Similarly, most male participants reported being open to marrying someone of lower social status, while most female participants disapproved of this. These findings underscore the complex interplay between gender perceptions, economic expectations, and relationship dynamics.
1. Conclusion
Findings reveal multifactorial interaction influencing medical students’ perceptions of gender. Female gender, younger age, urban living, and higher income were associated with more egalitarian views, whereas residing in the Southeast Anatolia region and identifying as religious correlated with more traditional perspectives and greater acceptance of gender stereotypes [
18,
28,
30].
Maternal education level positively influenced gender perceptions, confirming existing evidence [
19,
29]. Unlike the previous study, which found a positive relationship between a father’s level of education and his perception of gender [
28], this study found no such relationship.
The observed decline in positive gender perceptions among students in their later years of medical education is concerning and underscores the need to critically consider the potential impact of medical education on gender attitudes.
In this context, it would be appropriate to add content to the medical education curriculum and carry out interventionist projects to provide future physicians with a gender-sensitive perspective.
In “Problem-Based Teaching” courses, real patient scenarios are used to teach medical principles. These scenarios can raise awareness about gender stereotypes and inequality. Using audiovisual materials, facilitates exploring gender-sensitive communication in patient-physician interactions.
Integrating gender medicine into simulation training could educate physicians about gender-specific differences in the presentation and outcomes of male and female patients.
The hidden curriculum that shapes the social learning process of medical students should also be considered when promoting positive gender perceptions in medicine. Structured training processes should be designed for individuals teaching or working in medical settings.
Gender roles and expectations affect patients and professionals alike. The persistence of traditional gender perceptions among future physicians underscores the urgent need for proactive measures to promote gender equality in medical education and practice.
2. Limitations
First, the sample disproportionately includes fewer foreign and married students, which limits the generalizability of the findings on these social variables. Second, the cross-sectional design of the study restricts our ability to draw causal inferences about the observed relationships.
Acknowledgements
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Author contributions
Data collection: NBE. Writing–original draft: NBE. Writing–review & editing: NBE, NK. Validation: NK. Supervision: NBE, NK. Final approval of the manuscript: NBE, NK.
Table 1.Gender Perception Scale Scores by Demographic Characteristics
Table 1.
|
Characteristic |
Socio-demographic data No. (%) |
GS
|
GRI-P
|
GRI-D
|
PGS
|
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
|
Term |
|
|
0.224 |
|
0.049b)
|
|
0.217 |
|
0.018bc
|
|
1a
|
128 (33.7) |
21.33±5.76 |
|
23.54±6.53 |
|
23.33±6.47 |
|
101.94±19.40 |
|
|
3b
|
101 (26.6) |
22.65±5.57 |
|
23.70±5.35 |
|
22.80±6.12 |
|
97.83±16.29 |
|
|
6c
|
151 (39.7) |
21.76±5.90 |
|
25.13±5.70 |
|
24.16±6.10 |
|
95.52±19.83 |
|
|
Gender |
|
|
0.283 |
|
0.000
|
|
0.000
|
|
0.000
|
|
Female |
214 (56.3) |
21.57±5.60 |
|
22.82±5.98 |
|
22.02±5.42 |
|
106.51±13.28 |
|
|
Male |
166 (43.7) |
22.21±5.99 |
|
26.02±5.39 |
|
25.45±6.70 |
|
87.71±19.94 |
|
|
Age (yr)c)
|
|
|
0.253 |
|
0.093 |
|
0.360 |
|
0.001df
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.030ef
|
|
18–20d
|
145 (38.3) |
21.30±5.58 |
|
23.55±6.38 |
|
23.08±23.34 |
|
101.67±18.77 |
|
|
21–23e
|
128 (33.7) |
22.46±5.85 |
|
24.12±5.24 |
|
23.34±5.51 |
|
99.10±16.68 |
|
|
>23f
|
106 (28.0) |
21.78±5.86 |
|
25.19±6.02 |
|
24.19±6.61 |
|
92.84±20.71 |
|
|
Marital status |
|
|
0.815 |
|
0.254 |
|
0.988 |
|
0.761 |
|
Married |
14 (3.7) |
21.50±6.11 |
|
26.00±8.49 |
|
23.50±7.14 |
|
96.78±22.9 |
|
|
Single |
366 (96.3) |
21.86±5.77 |
|
24.15±5.82 |
|
23.52±6.22 |
|
98.36±18.82 |
|
|
Country of birth and upbringing |
|
|
0.055 |
|
0.463 |
|
0.452 |
|
0.112 |
|
Turkey |
373 (98.2) |
21.77±5.76 |
|
24.19±5.97 |
|
23.49±6.25 |
|
98.51±18.82 |
|
|
Other |
7 (1.8) |
26.00±5.56 |
|
25.85±3.84 |
|
25.28±6.04 |
|
87.00±24.24 |
|
|
Place of birth and upbringing |
|
|
0.350 |
|
0.006
|
|
0.134 |
|
0.119 |
|
Rural |
54 (14.2) |
22.53±6.30 |
|
26.27±5.78 |
|
24.70±6.56 |
|
94.57±18.67 |
|
|
Urban |
326 (85.8) |
21.74±5.69 |
|
23.88±5.90 |
|
23.32±6.18 |
|
98.92±18.96 |
|
|
Geographical region of residencec)
|
|
|
0.267 |
|
0.069 |
|
0.020b)
|
|
0.018hg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.036hi
|
|
Marmara |
24 (6.3) |
21.62±6.39 |
|
22.54±4.99 |
|
21.04±5.50 |
|
103.45±17.87 |
|
|
Southeast Anatoliag
|
15 (4.0) |
24.86±5.84 |
|
24.40±7.45 |
|
22.00±5.39 |
|
88.73±17.38 |
|
|
Mediterranean |
45 (11.9) |
21.26±5.67 |
|
23.11±6.36 |
|
23.42±6.42 |
|
101.20±17.82 |
|
|
Black Sea Regionh
|
18 (4.7) |
19.77±4.13 |
|
21.66±5.73 |
|
19.77±5.44 |
|
110.27±11.91 |
|
|
Central Anatolia |
243 (64.1) |
22.00±5.79 |
|
24.48±5.78 |
|
24.13±6.23 |
|
97.60±18.96 |
|
|
Aegeani |
23 (6.1) |
21.08±6.29 |
|
25.95±5.38 |
|
23.17±6.58 |
|
92.17±20.56 |
|
|
Eastern Anatolia |
11 (2.9) |
22.54±5.20 |
|
27.00±7.19 |
|
25.72±5.86 |
|
95.09±23.55 |
|
|
Mother’s education |
|
|
0.156 |
|
0.020jl
|
|
|
|
0.000jl
|
|
|
|
|
0.007kl
|
|
|
|
0.007jk
|
|
No education/primary schoolj
|
128 (33.7) |
21.98±6.05 |
|
24.73±6.19 |
|
24.39±5.91 |
0.127 |
92.53±21.97 |
|
|
Secondary school/high schoolk
|
141 (37.1) |
22.40±5.80 |
|
24.96±5.85 |
|
23.28±6.18 |
|
99.39±16.77 |
|
|
College/universityl
|
111 (29.2) |
21.00±5.35 |
|
22.68±5.50 |
|
22.81±6.63 |
|
103.57±15.95 |
|
|
Mother’s employment status |
|
|
0.014mn
|
|
0.001mo
|
|
|
|
0.000mo
|
|
|
0.006mo
|
|
0.020no
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never workedm
|
195 (51.3) |
22.89±5.69 |
|
25.01±5.77 |
|
24.17±6.13 |
0.070 |
94.20±20.21 |
|
|
Worked quitn
|
67 (17.6) |
20.62±6.31 |
|
24.92±6.25 |
|
23.43±7.25 |
|
99.22±18.39 |
|
|
Still workingo
|
118 (31.1) |
20.83±5.31 |
|
22.51±5.72 |
|
22.50±5.70 |
|
104.55±15.09 |
|
|
Father’s education |
|
|
0.846 |
|
0.318 |
|
0.032b)
|
|
0.363 |
|
No education/primary school |
62 (16.3) |
22.24±5.42 |
|
24.83±6.22 |
|
24.87±6.22 |
|
95.25±18.05 |
|
|
Middle school/high school |
99 (26.1) |
21.80±6.25 |
|
24.70±6.05 |
|
24.22±6.62 |
|
98.34±20.13 |
|
|
University |
219 (57.6) |
21.76±5.67 |
|
23.82±5.80 |
|
22.82±6.02 |
|
99.14±18.65 |
|
|
Father’s employment status |
|
|
0.349 |
|
0.306 |
|
0.031b)
|
|
0.097 |
|
Never worked |
7 (1.8) |
20.28±5.34 |
|
27.14±6.84 |
|
28.00±7.04 |
|
85.00±25.06 |
|
|
Worked quit |
71 (18.7) |
22.66±5.67 |
|
24.67±5.62 |
|
24.64±6.59 |
|
96.38±19.88 |
|
|
Still working |
302 (79.5) |
21.70±5.80 |
|
24.04±5.98 |
|
23.15±6.09 |
|
99.06±18.50 |
|
|
Structure of family |
|
|
0.905 |
|
0.180 |
|
0.312 |
|
0.893 |
|
Nuclear family |
347 (91.3) |
21.84±5.76 |
|
24.09±6.05 |
|
23.42±6.20 |
|
98.26±19.14 |
|
|
Extended family |
33 (8.7) |
21.96±6.05 |
|
25.54±4.41 |
|
24.57±6.67 |
|
98.72±17.17 |
|
|
Income status of family |
|
|
0.611 |
|
0.096 |
|
0.043b)
|
|
0.351 |
|
Income less than expenditure |
27 (7.1) |
22.44±5.85 |
|
26.55±5.59 |
|
25.74±7.16 |
|
93.22±21.29 |
|
|
Income equal to expenditure |
225 (59.2) |
21.61±5.49 |
|
24.14±5.65 |
|
23.76±5.95 |
|
98.60±19.44 |
|
|
Income more than expenditure |
128 (33.7) |
21.61±5.49 |
|
24.14±5.65 |
|
23.76±5.95 |
|
98.60±19.44 |
|
|
Total |
380 (100.0) |
21.85±5.77 |
|
24.22±5.94 |
|
23.52±6.24 |
|
98.30±18.96 |
|
Table 2.Influence of Sociocultural Factors on Medical Students’ Gender Perceptions
Table 2.
|
Sociocultural factor |
Socio-demographic data No. (%) |
GS
|
GRI-P
|
GRI-D
|
PGS
|
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
Mean±SD |
p-valuea)
|
|
Do you have siblings of a different gender than you? |
|
|
0.697 |
|
0.493 |
|
0.640 |
|
0.382 |
|
Yes |
264 (69.5) |
21.93±5.77 |
|
24.35±5.89 |
|
23.42±6.05 |
|
97.73±18.65 |
|
|
No |
116 (30.5) |
21.68±5.81 |
|
23.90±6.05 |
|
23.75±6.68 |
|
99.58±19.65 |
|
|
Does your father help with the housework? |
|
|
0.461 |
|
0.165 |
|
0.722 |
|
0.269 |
|
Always |
58 (15.3) |
22.72±6.40 |
|
22.86±6.99 |
|
22.91±6.92 |
|
100.55±19.58 |
|
|
Occasionally |
260 (68.4) |
21.68±5.46 |
|
24.43±5.49 |
|
23.62±5.97 |
|
97.23±18.86 |
|
|
Never |
62 (16.3) |
21.75±6.44 |
|
24.58±6.56 |
|
23.66±6.76 |
|
100.69±18.69 |
|
|
How would you describe your religious faith?b)
|
|
|
0.120 |
|
0.133 |
|
0.833 |
|
0.000ba
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.013ca
|
|
I am very religious.a
|
214 (56.6) |
22.12±6.20 |
|
24.72±5.95 |
|
23.39±6.16 |
|
94.70±19.08 |
|
|
I'm not very religious.b
|
158 (41.8) |
21.69±5.17 |
|
23.67±5.83 |
|
23.74±6.26 |
|
102.43±17.84 |
|
|
I don’t have a faith.c
|
6 (1.6) |
17.33±4.08 |
|
21.66±5.20 |
|
22.83±6.99 |
|
116.50±6.47 |
|
|
What do you think your spouse’s income should be?c)
|
|
|
0.000de
|
|
0.000de
|
|
0.000de
|
|
0.000de
|
|
|
0.008df
|
|
0.019df
|
|
0.005df
|
|
0.000df
|
|
I don’t want him/her to earn more than me.d
|
34 (9.0) |
25.14±6.22 |
|
28.41±4.74 |
|
27.38±6.18 |
|
78.05±16.32 |
|
|
I don’t care about that.e
|
281 (74.1) |
21.09±5.48 |
|
23.53±5.95 |
|
23.11±6.21 |
|
100.52±18.53 |
|
|
I want him/her to earn more than me.f
|
64 (16.9) |
23.43±5.99 |
|
25.07±5.50 |
|
23.29±5.84 |
|
99.29±15.86 |
|
|
Would you agree to marry someone who is academically inferior to you? |
|
|
0.141 |
|
0.065 |
|
0.816 |
|
0.001gh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.017gi
|
|
Yesg
|
189 (49.7) |
22.41±5.82 |
|
24.93±5.82 |
|
23.71±6.35 |
|
94.70±21.02 |
|
|
Noh
|
55 (14.5) |
21.69±5.86 |
|
23.30±5.85 |
|
23.16±5.79 |
|
105.29±14.64 |
|
|
I didn’t think about it.i
|
136 (35.8) |
21.13±5.63 |
|
23.60±6.05 |
|
23.40±6.31 |
|
100.47±16.28 |
|
|
Total |
380 (100.0) |
21.85±5.77 |
|
24.22±5.94 |
|
23.52±6.24 |
|
98.30±18.96 |
|
Table 3.Influence of Gender on Attitudes towards Spousal Income and Marrying a Lower-Status Partner
Table 3.
|
Variable |
GS |
GRI-P |
GRI-D |
PGS |
|
Opinion about spouse’s income statusa)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t want him/her to earn more than me.a
|
23.50±3.53 |
32.00±1.41 |
21.50±4.94 |
82.00±19.79 |
|
I don’t care about that.b
|
20.67±5.36 |
21.96±5.91 |
21.61±5.91 |
108.92±12.24 |
|
I want him/her to earn more than me.c
|
23.81±5.72 |
24.79±5.58 |
23.13±5.84 |
101.28±12.24 |
|
p-valueb)
|
0.001bc
|
0.005bc
|
0.187
|
0.009ab
|
|
|
|
|
0.000bc
|
|
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t want him/her to earn more than me.a
|
25.25±6.37 |
28.18±4.80 |
27.75±6.12 |
77.81±16.43 |
|
I don’t care about that.b
|
21.58±5.60 |
25.39±5.46 |
24.89±6.78 |
90.63±19.81 |
|
I want him/her to earn more than me.c
|
19.00±8.00 |
28.40±3.04 |
25.20±6.09 |
75.80±22.59 |
|
p-valueb)
|
0.005ab
|
0.023ab
|
0.097
|
0.003ab
|
|
Marrying someone with a lower educational level |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
21.58±5.57 |
23.13±6.17 |
22.26±5.28 |
107.66±13.17 |
|
No |
21.58±6.17 |
22.60±6.01 |
22.36±5.49 |
108.28±12.34 |
|
I didn’t think about it |
21.56±5.35 |
22.60±5.81 |
21.58±5.57 |
104.31±13.28 |
|
p-valueb)
|
1.000 |
0.818 |
0.641 |
0.157 |
|
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
Yesd
|
23.11±5.96 |
26.42±5.07 |
24.92±6.91 |
83.88±20.25 |
|
Noe
|
22.22±4.14 |
26.88±3.33 |
27.22±5.91 |
90.00±16.58 |
|
I didn’t think about it.f
|
20.50±6.03 |
25.11±6.16 |
26.16±6.41 |
94.64±18.12 |
|
p-valueb)
|
0.025ac
|
0.310 |
0.393 |
0.003df
|
References
- 1. Bem SL. Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychol Rev. 1981;88(4):354.
- 2. Hamberg K. Gender bias in medicine. Womens Health (Lond). 2008;4(3):237-243.
- 3. Sheehan S. Feasts for the eyes: visuality and desire in the ulster cycle. In: Sheehan S, ed. Constructing Gender in Medieval Ireland. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013:95-113.
- 4. Marshall G. Sosyoloji sözlügü [Dictionary of sociology]. Ankara, Turkey: Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları; 1999.
- 5. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. İşgücü istatistikleri [Labor force statistics]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-Mayis-2016-21578. Published May 2016. Accessed May 16, 2025
- 6. World Health Organization. Gender, equity and human rights. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender. Published c2025. Accessed May 16, 2025
- 7. Colameco S, Becker LA, Simpson M. Sex bias in the assessment of patient complaints. J Fam Pract. 1983;16(6):1117-1121.
- 8. Kuzuca IG, Arda B. What can we say about gender discrimination in medicine?: a limited research from Turkey. J Ankara Univ Fac Med. 2010;63:1-8.
- 9. Pelzer BW, Mickevičiūtė K. Gender beliefs in medical students. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;41:e24.
- 10. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. İstatistiklerle Kadın, 2024 [Women in statistics, 2024]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Kadin-2024-54076. Published 2024. Accessed May 16, 2025
- 11. Verdonk P, Benschop YW, De Haes HC, Lagro-Janssen TL. Medical students’ gender awareness: construction of the Nijmegen gender awareness in medicine scale (N-GAMS). Sex Roles. 2008;58(3):222-234.
- 12. Seyfeli MY, Baykan Z, Naçar M, Şafak ED, Çetinkaya F. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of “Nijmegen-Gender Awareness in Medicine scale”. Istanbul Med J. 2019;20(5):382-388.
- 13. Altınova HH, Duyan V. The validity and reliability of perception of gender scale. Toplum Sos Hizmet. 2013;24(2):9-22.
- 14. Hall JA, Roter DL. Do patients talk differently to male and female physicians?: a meta-analytic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(3):217-224.
- 15. Nolen HA, Moore JX, Rodgers JB, Wang HE, Walter LA. Patient preference for physician gender in the emergency department. Yale J Biol Med. 2016;89(2):131-142.
- 16. Santos MA, Grosseman S, Morelli TC, Giuliano IC, Erdmann TR. Empathy differences by gender and specialty preference in medical students: a study in Brazil. Int J Med Educ. 2016;7:149-153.
- 17. Morais R, Bernardes SF, Verdonk P. Gender awareness in medicine: adaptation and validation of the Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale to the Portuguese population (N-GAMS). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25(2):457-477.
- 18. Altuntaş O, Altinova HH. Determining the relationship between gender perception and socioeconomic variables. Turk Stud. 2015;10(6):83-100. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7674
- 19. Direk N, Irmak B. Attitudes of medical students towards gender roles at Dokuz Eylul University School of Medicine. DEÜ Tıp Fak Derg. 2017;31(3):121-128. https://doi.org/10.5505/deutip.2017.93064
- 20. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. Mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitimi ulusal çekirdek eğitim programı 2020 [National core education program for undergraduate medical education, 2020]. https://eski.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/mezuniyet-oncesi-tip-egitimi-cekirdek-egitimi-programi.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed May 16, 2025
- 21. Esen E, Soylu Y, Siyez DM, Demirgürz G. Examination of gender perception of university students according to sex and sex roles. E-Uluslar Eğit Araşt Derg. 2017;8(1):46-63. https://doi.org/10.19160/5000197327
- 22. Özpulat F. The relationship between nursing students’ violent tendencies and gender perceptions. Başkent Üniv Sağlık Bilim Fak Derg. 2017;2(2):151-161. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/busbid/issue/82880/1425748
- 23. Pınar G, Taşkın L, Eroğlu K. The behaviours of the students in dormitory of Baskent University against sexual role patterns. Hacettepe Üniv Hemşirelik Fak Derg. 2008;15(1):47-57. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunhemsire/issue/7845/103305
- 24. Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med. 1994;69(11):861-871.
- 25. Witman Y. What do we transfer in case discussions?: the hidden curriculum in medicine…. Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3(2):113-123.
- 26. Glicken AD, Merenstein GB. Addressing the hidden curriculum: understanding educator professionalism. Med Teach. 2007;29(1):54-57.
- 27. Gönenç İM, Topuz Ş, Yılmaz Sezer N, Yılmaz S, Duman NB. Effect of gender course on gender perception. Ankara Sağlık Bilim Derg. 2018;7(1):22-29. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ausbid/issue/38008/438855
- 28. Zeybek V, Kurşun M. Attitudes of medical students towards gender roles. Pamukkale Med J. 2019;12(2):225-233. https://doi.org/10.31362/patd.468353
- 29. Aylaz R, Güneş G, Uzun Ö, Ünal S. Opinions of university students on gender roles. Sürekli Tıp Eğit Derg. 2014;23(5):183-189. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suheyla-Unal/publication/321482002_Universite_Ogrencilerinin_Toplumsal_Cinsiyet_Rolune_Yonelik_Gorusleri/links/5ffdd59245851553a03d490f/Ueniversite-Oegrencilerinin-Toplumsal-Cinsiyet-Roluene-Yoenelik-Goeruesleri.pdf
- 30. Kaya FŞ, Uysal V. A research about social gender roles and religiosity perceptions in society. J Int Soc Res. 2015;8(36):646-662.
