Uzman Hekimlerin Bağlanma Stilleri ve Bağlanma Stillerinin Uzmanlık Dalıyla İlişkisi

Öz

Giriş: Bu çalışmanın amacı uzman hekimlerin bağlanma stillerini değerlendirmek, bağlanma stilleriyle uzmanlık dalı ve Tıp Uzmanlık Sınavı’nda (TUS) ilk tercihine girme arasında ilişki olup olmadığını incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 92 hekim çalışmaya alınmıştır. Tüm olgulara bireysel bilgi toplama formu ve İlişki Ölçekleri Anketi (Relationship Scales Questionnaire, RSQ) uygulanmıştır. Katılımcılarımıza cinsiyetleri, hangi branşta uzmanlık yaptıkları ve şu anki uzmanlık dallarının TUS’ta ilk tercihleri olup olmadığı sorulmuştur. Uzmanlık branşları cerrahi branşlar, dahili branşlar, temel tıp bilimleri ve aile hekimliği uzmanlığı olarak 4 gruba ayrılmıştır. Sonuç: Tüm katılımcıların %14,1’inde güvenli bağlanma, %57,6’sında korkulu bağlanma, %32,6’sında saplantılı bağlanma, %3,3’ünde kayıtsız bağlanma vardı. Katılımcıların cinsiyetleri ile bağlanma stilleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık yoktu. TUS’ta ilk tercihine girmiş olma ile bağlanma stilleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık yoktu. Katılımcılarımızın eğitim gördükleri uzmanlık dalları ile bağlanma stilleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık yoktu. Tartışma: Uzman hekimlerde en sık kaygılı bağlanma vardı. Hekimlerin uzmanlık alanları ile bağlanma stilleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık olmasa da aile hekimleri ve dahili bilimlerdeki hekimlerin güvenli bağlanma oranı temel tıp ve cerrahi bilimlerdeki hekimlere göre daha yüksekti.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bağlanma stilleri
• tıp eğitimi
• uzmanlık dalı

Attachment Styles of Specialist Physicians and Relationship between Attachment Styles and Specialization

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the attachment styles of specialist physicians and to examine the differences in attachment styles according to their specialty and whether they are placed in their first preference in the medical specialty exam (TUS). Method: A total of 92 physicians were included in the study. Individual information collection forms and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) were administered to all participants. Participants were asked about their gender, their specialization field, and whether their current specialization field was their first choice in the Medical Specialization Exam (TUS). Specialization fields were divided into 4 groups: surgical specialties, internal medicine specialties, basic medical sciences, and family medicine specialization. Results: Among all participants, 14.1% exhibited secure attachment, 57.6% displayed fearful attachment, 32.6% demonstrated preoccupied attachment, and 3.3% had dismissive attachment. There was no significant difference in attachment styles based on the participants' genders. There was no significant difference in attachment styles based on whether they entered their first choice in the Medical Specialization Exam (TUS). There was no significant difference in attachment styles based on the specialization fields in which the participants received their education. Conclusion: Among expert physicians, anxious attachment was the most common attachment style. Although there was no statistically significant difference in attachment styles based on physicians' specialization fields, family medicine and internal medicine practitioners exhibited a higher rate of secure attachment compared to those in the basic medical and surgical sciences. Determination of other possible motivational factors as well as attachment styles could provide guidance and insight to the physician in this choice that will affect her/his whole life

Anahtar Kelimeler

• attachment styles
• medical education
• specialization field

Kaynakça

1. 1. Thompson RA. Attachment theory Thompson and research. In Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 3rd Ed. (Ed M Lewis):164-172. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams Wilkins, 2002.
2. 2. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2. Separation, Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books 1973.
3. 3. Keskin G, Çam O. Ergenlik ve Bağlanma Süreci: Ruh Sağlığı Açısından Literatürün Gözden Geçirilmesi. New Symposium Journal. 2009; 47: 52-9.
4. 4. Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991; 61: 226-44.
5. 5. Erözkan A. Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Bağlanma Stilleri ve Karar Stratejileri, Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2011; 2: 60-74.
6. 6. Ciechanowski PS, Russo JE, Katon WJ, et al. Attachment theory in health care: the influence of relationship style on medical students’ specialty choice. Med Educ. 2004; 38: 262-70.
7. 7. Eells TD. Attachment theory and psychotherapy research. J Psychother Pract Res. 2001; 10: 132-5.
8. 8. Khader Y, Al-Zoubi D, Amarin Z, et al. Factors affecting medical students in formulating their specialty preferences in Jordan. BMC Med Educ. 2008; 8: 32.

9. 9. Fincher RM, Lewis LA, Rogers LQ. Classification model that predicts medical students' choices of primary care or non‐primary care specialties. Acad Med. 1992; 67: 324-7.
10. 10. Herbert‐Carter J. Factors influencing career choices of second‐year students at a traditionally black medical school. Acad Med. 1992; 67: 286.
11. 11. Leiper R, Casares P. An investigation of the attachment organisation of clinical psychologists and its relationship to clinical practice. Br J Med Psychol. 2000; 73: 449-64.
12. 12. Sümer N, Güngör D. Yetişkin Bağlanma Stilleri Ölçeklerinin Türk Örneklemi Üzerinde Psikometrik Değerlendirmesi ve Kültürlerarası Bir Karşılaştırma. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 1999; 14: 71-106.
13. 13. Mickelson KD, Kessler RC, Shaver PR. Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. J Pers Soc Psychology. 1997; 73: 1092-106.
14. 14. Waters E, Hamilton CE, Weinfield NS. The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Develop. 2000; 71: 678-83.
15. 15. Fraley RC, Roisman GI. The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019; 25: 26-30.
16. 16. Fraley RC. Attachment in Adulthood: Recent Developments, Emerging Debates, and Future Directions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019; 4: 401-22.
17. 17. Shaver PR, Mikulincer M, Cassidy J. Attachment, caregiving in couple relationships, and prosocial behavior in the wider world. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019; 25: 16-20.
18. 18. Ein-Dor T, Orgad T. Scared saviors: evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more effective in alerting others to threat. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2012; 42: 667-71.
19. 19. Kogut T, Kogut E. Exploring the relationship between adult attachment style and the identifiable victim effect in helping behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013; 49: 651-60.