4.5 Article

Sexual assault and harassment of doctors, by doctors: a qualitative study

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 833-843

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/medu.13912

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National University Gender Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context Although sexual harassment frequently occurs in medical education and medical workplaces, doctors who have been sexually harassed or assaulted by other doctors remain a largely invisible population. This study aimed to identify, using personal accounts, the impact on doctors of sexual harassment and assault by doctors in the workplace. Methods This narrative study used in-depth interviews, legal reports and victim impact statements, tracing trajectories from the event's pre-history to its aftermath and impact on professional practice. Participants were six Australian women doctors who had been subjected to one or more non-consensual sexual acts through coercion or intimidation by another doctor in their working environments, within hospital training programmes. Results All women identified long-term personal and professional impacts of their experience. Three women had never reported the abuse. The meaning and impact of sexual abuse for the doctors followed a trajectory with discrete phases: prelude, assault, limbo, exposure and aftermath. Discounting the event and its impacts, and returning to the workplace were characterised as 'being professional'. Those who sought legal restitution said it damaged their personal well-being and their standing among fellow doctors. Discussion Understanding the phases of experience of abuse enables the development of effective interventions for different phases. Interventions to minimise the risk of occurrence of sexual abuse must be distinguished from interventions to increase reporting rates, and interventions to mitigate harm and impact on victims' futures. Idealised notions of professionalism can act as obstacles to doctors responding to sexual abuse.

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