Women’s contribution to general practice: Medusa or Mother Teresa?

Lyn E Clearihan and Jan Y Coles
Med J Aust 2008; 189 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01937.x
Published online: 21 July 2008

If the female perspective is missing, how can true feminisation of the medical workforce occur?

Much has been written about the feminisation of the medical workforce. However, this usually refers to the increasing numbers of women entering medicine, rather than to an adaptation of medical theories and practices to incorporate a female perspective. Women and men work differently, and these behavioural differences are attracting attention as the workforce debate brings women’s contribution to medicine, and their place in general practice,1 under an intense spotlight. A number of studies have demonstrated the gendered nature of communication and practice styles,2-6 health care delivery7 and patient care.8 Some have raised the question of whether female work styles contribute to the workforce problem9 — work styles that are often assumed to represent inherent female behavioural attributes.10 The tension generated by increasing numbers of women within a predominantly male-driven medical ethos can be examined using two conceptual models — the “Medusa effect” and the “Mother Teresa effect”. These are used to demonstrate how gender-based stereotyping, plus entrenched assumptions and concepts about gendered behaviour, may be affecting the interpretation of practice styles11 and underpinning the workforce debate. We argue that there is an urgent need to re-think the gendered nature of medicine in order to allow us to explore innovative solutions to the problem of the current workforce shortage in general practice.

  • Department of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. McKinstry B. Are there too many female medical gradates? BMJ 2008; 336: 748.
  • 2. Roter D, Hall J. Physician gender and patient-centred communication: a critical review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health 2004; 25: 497-519.
  • 3. Meeuwesen L, Schaap C, van der Staak C. Verbal analysis of doctor–patient communication. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 1143-1150.
  • 4. Zaharias G, Piterman L, Liddell M. Doctor and patients: gender interaction in the consultation. Acad Med 2004; 79: 148-155.
  • 5. Bertakis KD, Helms LJ, Callahan EJ, et al. The influence of gender on physician practice style. Med Care 1995; 33: 407-416.
  • 6. Bensing JM, van den Brink-Muinen A, de Bakker DH. Gender differences in practice style: a Dutch study of general practitioners. Med Care 1993; 31: 219-229.
  • 7. Charles J, Britt H, Valenti L. The evolution of the general practice workforce in Australia, 1991–2003. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 85-90. <MJA full text>
  • 8. Kerssens JJ, Bensing J, Andela MG. Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 1531-1540.
  • 9. McKinstry B, Colthart I, Elliott K, Hunter C. The feminization of the medical workforce, implications for Scottish primary care: a survey of Scottish general practitioners. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 56.
  • 10. Beilby JJ, Furler JS. General practice research. Med J Aust 2003; 179: 55-56. <MJA full text>
  • 11. Wainer J. Athena’s journey: medicine and the feminine [thesis]. Melbourne: Monash University, 2004.
  • 12. Levinson W, Lurie N. When most doctors are women: what lies ahead? Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 471-474.
  • 13. Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA 2002; 288: 756-764.
  • 14. Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo JJ, Gonzales JJ, et al. Race, gender and partnership in the patient–physician relationship. JAMA 1999; 282: 583-589.
  • 15. Hyppölä H, Kumpusalo E, Neittaanmäki L, et al. Becoming a doctor — was it the wrong career choice? Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 1383-1387.
  • 16. Henderson J, Weisman C. Physician gender effects on preventive screening and counselling: an analysis of male and female patients’ health care experiences. Med Care 2001; 39: 1281-1292.
  • 17. Berthold HK, Gouni-Berthold I, Bestehorn KP, et al. Physician gender is associated with the quality of type 2 diabetes care. J Intern Med 2008; 4 Apr [Epub ahead of print].
  • 18. Bourne PG, Wikler NJ. Commitment and the cultural mandate: women in medicine. Soc Probl 1978; 25: 430-440.
  • 19. Law SAT, Britten N. Factors that influence the patient centredness of a consultation. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 520-524.
  • 20. Britt H, Bhasale A, Miles D, et al. The sex of the general practitioner: a comparison of characteristics, patients, and medical conditions managed. Med Care 1996; 34: 403-415.
  • 21. Deveugele M, Derese A, van den Brink-Muinen A, et al. Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries. BMJ 2002; 325: 472.
  • 22. Sobecks NW, Justice AC, Hinze S, et al. When doctors marry doctors: a survey exploring the professional and family lives of young physicians. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 312-319.
  • 23. Reed V, Buddeberg-Fischer B. Career obstacles for women in medicine: an overview. Med Educ 2001; 35: 139-147.
  • 24. Wear D. Privilege in the medical academy: a feminist examines gender, race and power. London: Teachers College Press, 1997.
  • 25. Bickel J, Wara D, Atkinson BF, et al. Increasing women’s leadership in academic medicine: report of the AAMC Project Implementation Committee. Acad Med 2002; 77: 1043-1061.
  • 26. Hawton K, Clements A, Sakarovitch C, et al. Suicide in doctors: a study of risk according to gender, seniority and speciality in medical practitioners in England and Wales, 1979–1995. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001; 55: 296-300.
  • 27. Cooke M, Ronalds C. Women doctors in urban general practice: the doctors. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985; 290: 753-755.
  • 28. Gjerberg E. Women doctors in Norway: the challenging balance between career and family life. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 1327-1341.
  • 29. Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee. The general practice workforce in Australia: supply and requirements to 2013. Sydney: AMWAC, 2005.
  • 30. Lawrence J, Poole P, Diener S. Critical factors in career decision making for women medical graduates. Med Educ 2003; 37: 319-327.
  • 31. Joyce CM, McNeil JJ, Stoelwinder JU. Time for a new approach to medical workforce planning. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 343-346. <MJA full text>


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.