Extent and types of gender-based discrimination against female medical students and physicians at five university hospitals in Germany - results of an online survey.

Objective: There is a gap in research on gender-based discrimination (GBD) in medical education and practice in Germany. This study therefore examines the extent and forms of GBD among female medical students and physicians in Germany. Causes, consequences and possible interventions of GBD are discussed. Methods: Female medical students (n=235) and female physicians (n=157) from five university hospitals in northern Germany were asked about their personal experiences with GBD in an online survey on self-efficacy expectations and individual perceptions of the "glass ceiling effect" using an open-ended question regarding their own experiences with GBD. The answers were analyzed by content analysis using inductive category formation and relative category frequencies. Results: From both interviewed groups, approximately 75% each reported having experienced GBD. Their experiences fell into five main categories: sexual harassment with subcategories of verbal and physical, discrimination based on existing/possible motherhood with subcategories of structural and verbal, direct preference for men, direct neglect of women, and derogatory treatment based on gender. Conclusion: The study contributes to filling the aforementioned research gap. At the hospitals studied, GBD is a common phenomenon among both female medical students and physicians, manifesting itself in multiple forms. Transferability of the results beyond the hospitals studied to all of Germany seems plausible. Much is known about the causes, consequences and effective countermeasures against GBD. Those responsible for training and employers in hospitals should fulfill their responsibility by implementing measures from the set of empirically evaluated interventions.

A desire for authoritative science? How citizens' informational needs and epistemic beliefs shaped their views of science, news, and policymaking in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus pandemic created a situation in which virological and epidemiological science became highly politically relevant but was uncertain and fragmented. This raises the question as to how science could inform policymaking and public debate on societal crisis management. Based on an online survey of Germans (N = 1513) representative for age, gender, education, and place of residence, we investigate citizens' prescriptive views of the relationships between science, policymaking, and the media. Views differ depending on their informational needs and epistemic beliefs. People with a need for definite information and a view of scientific knowledge as static wanted scientists to dominate policymaking and journalists to deliver definite information about the coronavirus. People with an informational need to construct their own opinions wanted journalists to question policy and scientific advice. Furthermore, they rejected the idea of scientists dominating policymaking. Results are discussed with reference to theories of science and democracy.