+1 Recommend
1 collections

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Medicine Goes Female: Protocol for Improving Career Options of Females and Working Conditions for Researching Physicians in Clinical Medical Research by Organizational Transformation and Participatory Design

      , PhD 1 , , , MD 2 , , MD 3 , , PhD 3 , , PhD 3 , , MD 2 , , MD 2 , , MD 4 , , MD 4 , , MD, DPH 5 , , MD 6 , , MD 7 , , MA 8 , , MD 9 , , MD 10 , , PhD 11 , , MD, PhD 12
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Research Protocols
      JMIR Publications
      gender equality, gender equality plan, research in academic medicine, working conditions, skills shortage

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          All European countries need to increase the number of health professionals in the near future. Most efforts have not brought the expected results so far. The current notion is that this is mainly related to the fact that female physicians will clearly outnumber their male colleagues within a few years in nearly all European countries. Still, women are underrepresented in leadership and research positions throughout Europe.


          The MedGoFem project addresses multiple perspectives with the participation of multiple stakeholders. The goal is to facilitate the implementation of Gender Equality Plans (GEP) in university hospitals; thereby, transforming the working conditions for women working as researchers and highly qualified physicians simultaneously. Our proposed innovation, a crosscutting topic in all research and clinical activities, must become an essential part of university hospital strategic concepts.


          We capture the current status with gender-sensitive demographic data concerning medical staff and conduct Web-based surveys to identify cultural, country-specific, and interdisciplinary factors conducive to women’s academic success. Individual expectations of employees regarding job satisfaction and working conditions will be visualized based on “personal construct theory” through repertory grids. An expert board working out scenarios and a gender topic agenda will identify culture-, nation-, and discipline-specific aspects of gender equality. University hospitals in 7 countries will establish consensus groups, which work on related topics. Hospital management supports the consensus groups, valuates group results, and shares discussion results and suggested measures across groups. Central findings of the consensus groups will be prepared as exemplary case studies for academic teaching on research and work organization, leadership, and management.


          A discussion group on gender equality in academic medicine will be established on an internationally renowned open-research platform. Project results will be published in peer-reviewed journals with high-impact factors. In addition, workshops on gender dimension in research using the principles of Gendered Innovation will be held. Support and consulting services for hospitals will be introduced in order to develop a European consulting service.


          The main impact of the project will be the implementation of innovative GEP tailored to the needs of university hospitals, which will lead to measurable institutional change in gender equality. This will impact the research at university hospitals in general, and will improve career prospects of female researchers in particular. Simultaneously, the gender dimension in medical research as an innovation factor and mandatory topic will be strengthened and integrated in each individual university hospital research activity. Research funding organizations can use the built knowledge to include mandatory topics for funding applications to enforce the use and implementation of GEP in university hospitals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The one number you need to grow.

            Companies spend lots of time and money on complex tools to assess customer satisfaction. But they're measuring the wrong thing. The best predictor of top-line growth can usually be captured in a single survey question: Would you recommend this company to a friend? This finding is based on two years of research in which a variety of survey questions were tested by linking the responses with actual customer behavior--purchasing patterns and referrals--and ultimately with company growth. Surprisingly, the most effective question wasn't about customer satisfaction or even loyalty per se. In most of the industries studied, the percentage of customers enthusiastic enough about a company to refer it to a friend or colleague directly correlated with growth rates among competitors. Willingness to talk up a company or product to friends, family, and colleagues is one of the best indicators of loyalty because of the customer's sacrifice in making the recommendation. When customers act as references, they do more than indicate they've received good economic value from a company; they put their own reputations on the line. And they will risk their reputations only if they feel intense loyalty. The findings point to a new, simpler approach to customer research, one directly linked to a company's results. By substituting a single question--blunt tool though it may appear to be--for the complex black box of the customer satisfaction survey, companies can actually put consumer survey results to use and focus employees on the task of stimulating growth.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group.

              Chung Sim (1998)
              The focus group has gained considerable popularity as a means of gathering qualitative data in nursing research. This paper examines some of the methodological issues raised by the collection and analysis of focus group data. In respect of data collection, the role of the focus group moderator and the method of recording data are crucial considerations. In particular, the moderator's personal skills and attributes have a considerable influence on the nature and quality of the data gathered. When analysing the data, three principal issues arise. First, it is difficult, and probably misguided, to attempt to infer an attitudinal consensus from focus group data. An apparent conformity of view is an emergent property of the group interaction, not a reflection of individual participants' opinions. Second, measuring strength of opinion from focus group data is problematic. The indicators used to measure attitudes in orthodox survey research are largely inapplicable to the context of focus groups. When comparing data from different focus groups, inferences may be drawn as to the presence of absence of certain views or issues across groups, but not in terms of their relative strength. Third, both methodological and epistemological objections can be raised against attempts to generalize from focus group data. Theoretical generalization is likely to be more feasible than empirical generalization, and if the latter is considered fruitful, it is likely to be of a provisional nature. The effective use of focus groups as a means of gathering qualitative data in nursing research requires due attention to problematic methodological issues such as those explored in this paper.

                Author and article information

                JMIR Res Protoc
                JMIR Res Protoc
                JMIR Research Protocols
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                August 2017
                02 August 2017
                : 6
                : 8
                : e152
                [01] 1 zeb.business school Steinbeis University Berlin Muenster Germany
                [02] 2 Clinic for Anesthesiology University Medicine Greifswald Greifswald Germany
                [03] 3 Department of Anaesthesia & Pain therapy Maastricht UMC+ Maastricht Netherlands
                [04] 4 General Surgery Clinic Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences University Hospital of Trieste Trieste Italy
                [05] 5 Bærum Hospital Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine Vestre Viken Health Trust Vestre Viken Norway
                [06] 6 Department of Anaesthesiology Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Lithuania
                [07] 7 University Hospital Clinic for Anasethesiology Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Cracow Poland
                [08] 8 Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine Department of Medical Sociology Jagiellonian University Medical College Cracow Poland
                [09] 9 Clinic for Anaesthesiology University Hospital Praha Praha Czech Republic
                [10] 10 Board of the University Hospital Frankfurt University Hospital Frankfurt Frankfurt Germany
                [11] 11 zeb.health care zeb Muenster Germany
                [12] 12 Department of Clinical Radiology Chair of the Research Group Cognition & Gender University Hospital Muenster Muenster Germany
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Joachim Hasebrook jhasebrook@ 123456zeb-bs.de
                Author information
                ©Joachim Hasebrook, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Wolfgang F.F.A. Buhre, Dianne de Korte-de Boer, Ankie E.W. Hamaekers, Bibiana Metelmann, Camila Metelmann, Marina Bortul, Silvia Palmisano, Jannicke Mellin-Olsen, Andrius Macas, Janusz Andres, Anna Prokop-Dorner, Tomáš Vymazal, Juergen Hinkelmann, Sibyll Rodde, Bettina Pfleiderer. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 02.08.2017.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                : 2 March 2017
                : 30 March 2017
                : 4 June 2017
                : 27 June 2017

                gender equality,gender equality plan,research in academic medicine,working conditions,skills shortage


                Comment on this article