Gender Inequalities at Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments of Turkish Medical Schools

Abstract

Background: Studies from the literature show that women prefer female physicians for their gynecological problems. This study aims to determine the distribution of female academic staff at obstetrics and gynecology departments of medical schools in Turkey. Methods: The list of all medical schools in Turkey was obtained from The Council of Higher Education. Among the 96 public and 45 private universities, 52 had medical schools two of which have not established department of obstetrics and gynecology yet. Secretaries of obstetrics and gynecology departments in remaining 50 (46 public, 4 private) medical schools were called by phone to gather information about gender distribution and academic ranks of the academic staff . Results: Twenty-eight of department heads, 17% of full professors, 19.51% of associate professors , 39.51% of assistant professors and 55.48% of the assistants are women. There is significant statistical difference between gender distribution of assistants and faculty (chi square =96.09 p

Keywords

• gender discrimination, gender inequality, academic staff, obstetrics and gynecology

TÜRKİYE’DE KADIN HASTALIKLARI VE DOĞUM ANABİLİM DALLARINDA CİNSİYET EŞİTSİZLİĞİ

Abstract

Amaç: Dünyada ve Türkiye’de yapılan birçok araştırma, kadınların jinekolojik problemlerinde daha çok kadın hekimlere başvurmayı tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’deki tüm tıp fakülteleri kadın hastalıkları doğum anabilim dallarında kadın akademik personelin dağılımını saptamaktır. Gereç Yöntem: YÖK’ten Türkiye’deki tüm tıp fakültelerinin listesi alınmıştır. Varolan 96 kamu 45 özel üniversitenin, 52’sinde tıp fakültesi mevcuttur. Bunların 2’sinde ise kadın doğum anabilim dalı aktif değildir. 50 (46 kamu, 4 özel) kadın doğum anabilim dalı sekreterlikleri aranmış, çalışan tüm hekimlerin cinsiyet ve akademik görevleriyle ilgili bilgi alınmıştır. Bulgular: Anabilim dalı başkanlarının %72’si erkektir. Profesörlerin sadece %17’si kadınken, doçentlerin %19,51’i, yardımcı doçentlerin % 39,51’i kadındır. Buna rağmen asistanların %55,48’i kadın olarak saptanmıştır. Öğretim üyeleri ve asistanlar arasında cinsiyet açısından anlamlı fark saptanmıştır (ki-kare =96,09p

Keywords

• cinsiyet ayrımcılığı, kadın hastalıkları ve doğum, akademik personel

References

1. Ergin I. Binyıl kalkınma hedeflerinde üreme sağlığı hizmetlerine erişim ve haklardaki değişim. STED 2008; 75(5): 77-85.
2. Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001; 28:254- 263.
3. Bashour H, Abdulsalam A, Syrian Women’s Preferences for Birth Attendant and Birth Place. Birth 2005; 32: 20-25.
4. Rızk DEE, El-Zubeir MA, Al-Dhaheri AM, Al-Mansouri FR, Al-Jenaibi HS Determinants of women’s choice of their obstetrician and gynecologist provider in the UAE Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 48-53.
5. Chandler PJ, Chandler C, Dabbs ML. Provider gender preference in obstetrics and gynecology: a military population. Mil Med 2000; 165: 938–940.
6. Howell EA, Gardiner B, Concato J. Do women prefer female obstetricians? Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 1031– 1035.
7. Howell EA,Gardiner B, Concato J. Do women prefer female obstetricians? Obstet Gynecology 2002; 99: 1031-1035.
8. Zuckerman M, Navizedeh N, Feldman J, et al. Determinants of women’s choice of obstetrician/gynecologists. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002; 11: 175–180.

9. Watson K, Mahowald MB, Honoring Gender-based Patient Requests for obstetricians: Ethical Imperative or Employment Discrimination? Journal of Women’s Health&Gender-Based Medicin 1999; 8(8): 1032-1041.
10. Council on Garduate Medical education. Fifth Report. Women and Medicine. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public health Services Resources and Services administration 1995.
11. Carnes M, Vanden Bosche G, agatisa PK, Hirschfield A, Dan a, Shaver Jl, Murasko D, McKaughlin M. Using womens health research to develop women leaders in academic health sciences: the National Centers of Excellence in Women’s Health. J Women’s Health and Gender based Medicine 2001; 10(1): 39-47.
12. Sayek İ, Odabaşı o, Kiper N. Türk Tabipleri Birliği Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp eğitimi Raporu 2010, TTB Yayınları Birinci baskı, Ankara 2010, 29-35.
13. Nora LM, Mc Laughkin MA, Posson SE, Jacob SK, Schmidt JL, Witzke. Does exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harrassment impact medical sudents’ specialty choices and residency program selections? Academic Medicine 1996; 71(10): 22-24.
14. Etker Ş, Dinç G. Cumhuriyetin ilk kadın cerrahları. Ed. Yıldırım N. Form Reklam Hizmetleri Bsk. İstanbul 1998, 48-59.
15. Duru S. İlk Türk kadın jinekolog Fatma Arif Atasagun. Ed. Yıldırım N. Form Reklam Hizmetleri Bsk. İstanbul 1998, 77-82. 16. Verdonk P, Benschop YWM, De Haaes HCJM, Largo-Janssen TLM. From gender bias to gender awarenessin medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2009; 14: 135-152.
16. Showalter E. Without improving the position of women in medicine: Will not be achieved by focusing only on the problems of women. BMJ 1999; 318: 71-72.
17. Carnes M, Morrissey C, Geller SE. Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: Htting the same glass ceiling. J womens health (Larchmt) 2008; 17(9): 1453-1462
18. Cain JM, Schullkin J, Parisi V, Power ML, Holzman GB, Williams S. The role of gender in an obstetrics and gynecology residency programme. Academic Medicine 2001; 76(6): 628-634.
19. Stratton TD, McLaughlin MA, Witte FM, Fosson SE, Nora LM. Does students' exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harassment in medical school affect specialty choice and residency program selection? Acad Med. 2005;80(4):400-408.
20. Baldwin DC, Jr, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD. Residents' and medical students' reports of sexual harassment and discrimination. Acad Med. 1996; 71(10): 25–27.