4.5 Article

Career satisfaction and professional accomplishments

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 44, 期 10, 页码 969-976

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03735.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CONTEXT Research on doctor career satisfaction has often focused on factors such as income, specialty, gender, work hours, autonomy, patient load, lifestyle preferences, work environment, and insurance regulations. Other educational, personal and professional factors have not received sufficient empirical attention. OBJECTIVE This study was designed to test the following five hypotheses that doctors' career satisfaction is associated with: (i) Higher satisfaction with their undergraduate medical education; (ii) Greater academic and clinical competence; (iii) More involvement in teaching and research activities; (iv) Higher orientation toward lifelong learning; and (v) Increased professional accomplishments. METHODS A survey was mailed in 2006 to a national sample of 5349 doctors in the United States who graduated from Jefferson Medical College between 1975 and 2000; 3170 (59%) returned completed surveys. Based on responses to a career satisfaction question, doctors were classified into three groups: Highly satisfied (top third, n = 1078); moderately satisfied (middle third, n = 1031); and least satisfied (bottom third, n = 1061). These groups were compared on a number of variables. RESULTS All five research hypotheses were confirmed. Additionally, no significant association was observed between career satisfaction, age, years in practice, gender, or ethnicity; however, career satisfaction was associated with doctors' specialties. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that factors such as satisfaction with medical education, medical school class rank, assessments of clinical competence, teaching, and research activities, orientation toward lifelong learning, and professional accomplishments should be considered for a more comprehensive understanding of doctors' career satisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据