4.7 Article

Work Experiences and Satisfaction of International Medical School Graduates

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 143, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-1953

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: We compared demographics and work, financial, and satisfaction experiences of early-career and midcareer pediatricians categorized by their childhood and medical school locations. METHODS: Data from the Pediatrician Life and Career Experience Study were used to examine the characteristics and experiences of 3 groups, which were categorized as (1) international childhood and medical school graduate (international-IMG), (2) United States childhood and international medical school graduate (US-IMG), and (3) United States or international childhood and United States medical school graduate (USMG). With multivariable logistic regression, we examined the experiences of the groups, controlling for participant characteristics. RESULTS: Data from 1467 of 1804 participants were analyzed; 13% were categorized as international-IMGs, 6% were categorized as US-IMGs, and 81% were categorized as USMGs. International-IMGs and US-IMGs were less likely than USMGs to report their race and ethnicity as white and non-Hispanic (26%, 32%, and 71%, respectively; P < .05) and more likely to report caring for patients with public insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-2.56] and aOR 2.12 [95% CI 1.31-3.42], respectively). International-IMGs were less likely than USMGs to agree that physician colleagues value their work (aOR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21-0.56). Overall, 8 in 10 reported that their work was personally rewarding; international-IMGs were less likely than USMGs to report such satisfaction (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Among a national sample of pediatricians, international-IMGs and US-IMGs play important roles in workforce diversity. They also report unique challenges. Most are satisfied with their work, but international-IMGs are the least satisfied.

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

4.7
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