Archive: May 2024

An overwhelmed woman in gray scrubs resting on a gray couch. Image by Cedric Fauntleroy under Pexels license.

In the United States, women on average earn less than men in their lifetimes (the gender pay gap). One of the various explanations for this pay gap is that women tend to do tasks that involve nurturing or helping others, and these tasks often don’t lead to promotions (or higher pay). Scholars argue that such labor is integral to organizations even though it doesn’t lead to promotions and is undervalued. But do such patterns hold in the medical field? 

To see if women doctors do more of the unrewarded but crucial work of nurturing others, Laura Nelson and her colleagues used data from an app used by doctors to evaluate students in residency (medical school). Their study examined 33,456 evaluations of 359 resident physicians by 285 attending physicians across eight U.S. hospitals. Within the app, doctors were required by their employers to at least leave a numerical rating of the students’ performance, however, reviewers could go beyond what was required and leave comments for the student. The researchers were specifically interested in this comment option and wanted to see if women were more likely to make comments to students within the app.

They found that women doctors do more work that involves helping or nurturing medical students than men.women doctors do more work that involves helping or nurturing medical students than men. Women provided more written feedback to medical students in residency, whereas men were over twice as likely to give only numerical evaluations, without adding written feedback. Furthermore, comments written by women often provided targeted and specific feedback, including reassurance to residents who made mistakes. 

This research confirms that one of the causes of the gender pay gap is that women do tasks, such as going above and beyond in training medical students, that don’t lead to them getting promoted. This research also encourages people to not just think about time spent at work but also think about who is doing more caring and nurturing tasks at work.

A group of people building a sidewalk with wet concrete. Image by Rodolfo Quirós under Pexels license.

A new study by Netta Kahana highlighted the shifting public opinions about combining travel with volunteering activities–practices, known widely as volunteer tourism or sometimes “voluntourism”. This practice typically emphasizes community work in developing countries and in recent years has come under scrutiny for being self-serving, exploitative, ineffective, and even harmful. Such concerns result from the fact volunteers can be unskilled and that the infrastructure these volunteers build is typically not self-sustainable without ongoing supplies or labor. Despite these critiques, volunteer tourism remains popular for ambitious and affluent young people and Kahana wanted to understand why. 

The study gauged 48 volunteer tourists from Israel and their self-perception, self-worth, and motivations.48 volunteer tourists from Israel and their self-perception, self-worth, and motivations. The interviewees were all in their twenties, from middle-class backgrounds, and had volunteered in either Nepal or India. Many of the study participants acknowledged recent public criticisms of voluntourism. However, they also saw volunteerism aligned with travel as a morally worthy action, serving the common good.

Kahana’s analysis documented three main justifications for these sentiments. The first involved the selection of a “proper” or reputable organization. As one volunteer explained:

• “You need to carefully check what their mission statements are because when you are in a hostel and they offer you to volunteer in an orphanage, it is for money. It totally hurts the children, so inquire, inquire, inquire, inquire, and investigate. You do not volunteer without talking with an alumnus. Like I did.”

The second justification had to do with providing locals with beneficial tools. Another volunteer put it like this:

• “The issue was about making them [the locals] understand they have more options to make money through tourism, and they can rebuild themselves financially. Because it’s very difficult there. It’s crazy poverty.”

The third justification volunteers offered was about being socially proactive:

• “I don’t say it [volunteering] is the best but if you come with good intentions and you want to help [then] come and do your best…. If you will do good, then it is great. If I look on the positive vs. the negative, then it is more positive. Hence, I volunteered. It is not a zero-sum game or 50-50, it is more 80-20.”

In other words, volunteers believe their good works contribute to net-positive outcomes.

positive self-evaluations of volunteer tourists’ characters and are used to dispel perceived judgments from society These interviews reveal the positive self-evaluations of volunteer tourists’ characters and are used to dispel any perceived judgements from society that might be raised about their participation. Kahana hopes her article will inform guidelines to ensure that the good intentions of volunteers will materialize as this sector of tourism continues to develop and grow.

A hospital room with three empty beds. Image by Pixabay under Pexels license.

People who cough or sneeze in public may receive disgusted glares. Addiction recovery programs are often anonymous. And many types of patients face isolation, negative stereotypes, and even verbal or physical abuse. All of these are examples of disease stigma, the negative meanings or stereotypes that we associate with a disease. Such stigmatization can lead to discrimination against people with health conditions. It can also cause people with health conditions to “self-stigmatize,” internalizing negative beliefs about themselves and their disease. Understanding how these processes work can help us create more effective ways to reduce stigma and its impact.

A recent study by Rachel Kahn Best and Alina Areseniev-Koehler aimed to understand why some diseases are more stigmatized by analyzing how different diseases were discussed in American media from 1980 to 2018. why some diseases are more stigmatized by analyzing how different diseases were discussed in American media from 1980 to 2018. Media can reveal stereotypes that are widely recognized and publicly discussed. Even when individuals do not believe these stereotypes, they are likely aware of them and may be influenced by them. Best and Areseniev-Koehler used word embedding (a computational text analysis method) to examine 4.7 million newspaper articles and transcripts from TV and radio programs. The study considered 106 different diseases, including behavioral health conditions (addictions, eating disorders, and mental illnesses), infectious diseases (sexually transmitted infections, influenza, hepatitis, malaria, etc.), and chronic conditions (cancers, autoimmune diseases, genetic diseases, hypertension, etc.).

Previous research on disease stigma suggests that there are two main drivers of stigma: contagion avoidance and norm enforcement. Contagion avoidance happens when people, in an effort to stay healthy, avoid other people who look sick. Norm enforcement happens when a disease becomes associated with a personality trait or behavior that society views as deviant or as a violation of social norms. For example, some may view addictions as a sign of weakness and sexually transmitted infections as a sign of promiscuity. Over time, however, advocacy efforts can help to reduce both types of stigma. 

Testing out these theories, Best and Areseniev-Koehler find that behavioral health conditions generate the most judgmental language in the media, connected to discussions of immorality and negative personality traits.behavioral health conditions generate the most judgmental language in the media, connected to discussions of immorality and negative personality traits. Among the infectious diseases, sexually transmitted infections generated the most judgment. Overall, infectious diseases were connected to meanings of disgust. These results support the idea that norm enforcement and contagion avoidance drive stigma. Best and Areseniev-Koehler also found that overall disease stigma has declined over time, but only for chronic physical illnesses. Stigma remains high for behavioral conditions and infectious diseases. 

Best and Areseniev-Koehler observed a somewhat lower stigma for diseases connected to stronger advocacy efforts. However, further research is needed to determine whether such advocacy causes a decrease in stigma.