Specialty preferences of Iraqi medical students

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical students have a wide spectrum of specialty preferences. OBJECTIVE: To study specialty preferences of Iraqi medical students and determine the factors controlling them. METHODS: A questionnaire survey involved final-year medical students at Al-Kindy College of Medicine, Baghdad University, in April 2008. The questionnaire included data on gender, specialty preference and the reason behind choosing their most preferred single specialty. We statistically analysed the data using the chi-square test and an unpaired Student's t-test. RESULTS: Clinical specialties were statistically rated higher than basic medical sciences specialties (73.1 vs. 26.9%) (unpaired Student's t-test, p < 0.05). Gender differences were found in clinical specialty preferences (chi-square test, p < 0.001). The most preferred clinical specialties chosen by both genders were internal medicine (29.4%), surgery (25%), paediatrics (25%), and obstetrics and gynaecology (20.6%). Gender differences were also found in basic medical sciences specialty preferences (chi-square, p < 0.05). The most preferred basic medical sciences specialties chosen by both genders were microbiology (32%), pharmacology (24%), pathology (16%), physiology (12%), biochemistry (8%) and anatomy (8%). Personal interest (33.3%) and anticipated higher income (29%) were ranked as the most influencing factors contributing to the choice of specialty in both genders. Other influential factors were ranked at lower rates, and included: prestige (14%), anticipated future mastering of skills and development (10.7%), charismatic role models (7.5%) and family or spousal influence (5.4%). However, no statistical gender differences were noted (chi-square, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Clinical specialties outnumbered basic medical sciences specialties as specialty preferences. Personal interest and an anticipated higher income were the most influential factors contributing to specialty preference.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.