Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 677

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Harassment and Discrimination in Medical Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Fnais, Naif, Soobiah, Charlene, Chen, Maggie Hong, Lillie, Erin, Perrier, Laure, Tashkhandi, Mariam, Straus, Sharon E., Mamdani, Muhammad, Al-Omran, Mohammed, Tricco, Andrea C.·2014·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Harassment and discrimination include a wide range of behaviors that medical trainees perceive as being humiliating, hostile, or abusive. To understand the significance of such mistreatment and to explore potential preventive strategies, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence, risk factors, and sources of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees. METHOD: In 2011, the authors identified relevant studies by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE, scanning reference lists of relevant studies, and contacting experts. They included studies that reported the prevalence, risk factors, and sources of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees. Two reviewers independently screened all articles and abstracted study and participant characteristics and study results. The authors assessed the methodological quality in individual studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. They also conducted a meta-analysis. RESULTS: The authors included 57 cross-sectional and 2 cohort studies in their review. The meta-analysis of 51 studies demonstrated that 59.4% of medical trainees had experienced at least one form of harassment or discrimination during their training (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0%-66.7%). Verbal harassment was the most commonly cited form of harassment (prevalence: 63.0%; 95% CI: 54.8%-71.2%). Consultants were the most commonly cited source of harassment and discrimination, followed by patients or patients' families (34.4% and 21.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the surprisingly high prevalence of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees that has not declined over time. The authors recommend both drafting policies and promoting cultural change within academic institutions to prevent future abuse.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000000200

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 677

Metadata

Authors
Fnais, N., Soobiah, C., Chen, M. H., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Tashkhandi, M., Straus, S. E., Mamdani, M., Al-Omran, M., & Tricco, A. C.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2014-05
Volume
89
Issue
5
Pages
817-827
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069308343
Cited by
677
References
33
FWCI
62.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Harassment and Discrimination in Medical Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0000000000000200
The paper
Fnais, N., Soobiah, C., Chen, M. H., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Tashkhandi, M., Straus, S. E., Mamdani, M., Al-Omran, M., & Tricco, A. C. (2014). Harassment and Discrimination in Medical Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000200

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.