'Charge what you think you're worth': a qualitative study exploring the gender pay gap in medicine and the role of price transparency.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1111/imj.16649
Camille La Brooy, Hana Sabanovic, Susan J Méndez, Jongsay Yong, Anthony Scott, Adam G Elshaug, Khic-Houy Prang
{"title":"'Charge what you think you're worth': a qualitative study exploring the gender pay gap in medicine and the role of price transparency.","authors":"Camille La Brooy, Hana Sabanovic, Susan J Méndez, Jongsay Yong, Anthony Scott, Adam G Elshaug, Khic-Houy Prang","doi":"10.1111/imj.16649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The gender pay gap in medicine is entrenched and has a negative impact on economic growth, institutional reputation and financial success, recruitment, retention and job satisfaction of female specialists and patient care. It also discourages women from entering specialist fields of medicine. In the Australian unregulated market setting, female specialists are not simply getting paid less, they are choosing to set lower fees than their male counterparts.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We examine how implicit and explicit gender biases affect how fees are set and the potential role of price transparency in addressing the gender pay gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with medical specialists recruited via social media and medical society newsletters between June 2021 and March 2022. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Twenty surgeons and seven anaesthetists, 15 of whom identified as male and 12 as female, participated in this study. The primary outcomes and measures focused on the perspectives of surgeons and anaesthetists regarding fee-setting practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A combination of contextual and market- and gender-related factors was the source of the biases that determine fee setting. Further, information asymmetry in medicine in Australia underlies current fee-setting practices, exacerbating and entrenching false perceptions about women's skills as surgeons and anaesthetists. Women tend to internalise these biases, self-regulating their behaviours and how they set their fees.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The gender pay gap is pervasive. Greater transparency on fees and quality could be explored as a potential solution to reduce pay inequality.</p>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16649","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The gender pay gap in medicine is entrenched and has a negative impact on economic growth, institutional reputation and financial success, recruitment, retention and job satisfaction of female specialists and patient care. It also discourages women from entering specialist fields of medicine. In the Australian unregulated market setting, female specialists are not simply getting paid less, they are choosing to set lower fees than their male counterparts.

Aims: We examine how implicit and explicit gender biases affect how fees are set and the potential role of price transparency in addressing the gender pay gap.

Methods: We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with medical specialists recruited via social media and medical society newsletters between June 2021 and March 2022. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Twenty surgeons and seven anaesthetists, 15 of whom identified as male and 12 as female, participated in this study. The primary outcomes and measures focused on the perspectives of surgeons and anaesthetists regarding fee-setting practices.

Results: A combination of contextual and market- and gender-related factors was the source of the biases that determine fee setting. Further, information asymmetry in medicine in Australia underlies current fee-setting practices, exacerbating and entrenching false perceptions about women's skills as surgeons and anaesthetists. Women tend to internalise these biases, self-regulating their behaviours and how they set their fees.

Conclusion: The gender pay gap is pervasive. Greater transparency on fees and quality could be explored as a potential solution to reduce pay inequality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
期刊最新文献
'Many heads are better than one': a paradigm shift towards a multidisciplinary infective endocarditis management approach. A new era in myeloma: the advent of chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cells and bispecific antibodies. Non-invasive ventilation in cystic fibrosis: the Australian experience over the past 24 years. Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors among Aboriginal people with type 2 diabetes in remote Northern Territory: 2012 to 2020. Better off alone? Artificial intelligence can demonstrate superior performance without clinician input.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1