Confidence gap between men and women in medicine: a systematic review

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to examine the existing data on disparities between men and women in the field of medicine in terms of self-confidence, self-efficacy, impostor syndrome, and other self-assessment factors. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using keywords “confidence gap,” “male female residents,” “self-perception,” “self-confidence,” “self-worth,” “self-assessment,” “impostor syndrome,” “medicine self-esteem,” and “gender differences medicine.” Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were sorted and reviewed. Type of study, outcome measures, and results were recorded in Excel. Qualitative analysis was performed on the data collected. Results: Of the 31 studies included in this review, 24 studies demonstrated that men’s self-reported scores in clinical knowledge, skills, procedural confidence, operative experience, and other competencies were higher than women’s self-reported scores. Women at graduate and post-graduate training levels rated themselves lower in perceived clinical skills, performance, confidence in procedures, identification with the role of doctor, interpersonal/communication skills, and preparedness for leadership positions. Furthermore, the rate of identification with impostor syndrome, stress, and burnout are higher in women than men. Evidence did not demonstrate any objective differences in actual performance or skills between men and women at any level of training in medicine. Conclusions: Even though women and men do not differ in their clinical performance, women in healthcare fields may perceive deficiencies in their abilities more often than their male counterparts. However, these results are tempered by the fact that the level of evidence of the studies included in the review is low. Level of Evidence: Level III.

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 — 58 citations exist upstream.

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