Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review

Gottlieb, Michael, Chung, Arlene, Battaglioli, Nicole, Sebok‐Syer, Stefanie S., Kalantari, Annahieta·2020·Medical Education

Abstract

Context: Impostor syndrome ( IS ) is increasingly recognised as a condition among physicians and physicians in training. Impostor syndrome is especially problematic because of its association with increased rates of burnout and suicide. In order to address this issue, we need to fully understand its prevalence, scope, and factors associated with IS . The purpose of this scoping review is to analyse the existing literature on IS among practising physicians and physicians in training in order to identify current trends and directions for future research. Methods: The authors conducted a literature search of nine databases for any articles on IS among practising physicians or physicians in training published prior to January 2019. Two reviewers independently screened articles and identified 18 papers meeting the study inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data and performed quantitative and qualitative syntheses consistent with best practice recommendations for scoping reviews. Results: Most studies utilised the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale and cited rates of IS ranging from 22% to 60%. Studies found that gender, low self‐esteem and institutional culture were associated with higher rates of IS , whereas social support, validation of success, positive affirmation, and both personal and shared reflections were protective. Overall, IS was also associated with higher rates of burnout. Conclusions: This review summarises the existing literature on IS among practising physicians and physicians in training, providing valuable insights and areas for future research.

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 · 10.1111/medu.13956

Cites

47 of 47 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 47 references

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Gottlieb, M., Chung, A., Battaglioli, N., Sebok‐Syer, S. S., & Kalantari, A.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-11-06
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
116-124
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2985146058
Cited by
312
References
47
FWCI
27.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/medu.13956
The paper
Gottlieb, M., Chung, A., Battaglioli, N., Sebok‐Syer, S. S., & Kalantari, A. (2020). Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: A scoping review. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13956

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.