The number of study participants in each field reflects the distribution amongst specialties. There are more FPs in the workforce than general surgeons. How does that bias the study? The p values are listed, if you want to see them.
i know it's an old thread, but i noticed some things and i wanted to mention them..
in regards to the above response--you are correct, but then you must realize that the p-value of general surgery in Leigh is 0.25. the only specialties with "high satisfaction" over 50% that meet a 0.95 confidence interval are dermatology (56%) and geriatrics (59.6%). neonatology (58%) is third with a 0.92 CI. it's interesting because on my slow days in medicine where we have time to actually understand patient problems, work them up completely, look up interesting articles, etc. it definitely feels a bit more satisfying in comparison.
this study is also fairly misleading because it ignores the huge and rapidly expanding fields of niche subspecialists (ie. cardiologists that primarily do imaging, psychiatrists that only do forensics, dermatopathologists, pulmonologists that do sleep medicine, a huge number of pediatric sub-specialists, neurologists that do only eegs, family practitioners that only do sports medicine, ENTs that almost only do facial cosmetics, etc.). something that comprehensive and well powered would really by something to talk about.
you can't make strong conclusions about cardiology with a 0.20 CI, gastro, neurosurg, allergy&immuno, or rheumatology with a whopping 0.01 CI. either these fields attract a larger variety of personalities, or the study was insufficiently powered to analyze them. yes, part of it is most likely because there are fewer of these physicians in the work force overall, but big deal--the bottom line is this study is really not that useful to draw conclusions from about those fields. it would also be interesting to see if these divisions still existed if you broke down IM into academic and private, or the same for ob-gyn, or even derm. i think the giant groups in the study would likely be sufficiently powered to analyze that.. maybe there's a follow-up analysis hiding in there somewhere.
what we do know for sure is that FPs, IMs, psychiatrists, ob-gyns and GPs tend to be less happy (with p values <0.05) . perhaps because a lot of them felt they had no choice in the matter because of lower boards scores. also because they work a lot, need to know a ridiculous amount, have a good chunk of malpractice, and may not feel they have rewards and independence commensurate with their efforts and skills. and they probably don't.
also looks like medicine sucks in california. 2/2 hmo's imho.
interesting to see that partners (not solo practitioners) and people making 250-300k a year are a good bit happier as well. maybe they're spending the increased free time they have to invest that 250 into >350k a year--would love to see that analysis! ie. one that looked at your 'true income'. also looks like the older physicians get, the more dissatisfied they are. but maybe they're unhappy because they're old
🙂
and of course there's the classic 'chicken and the egg' argument that you can apply to any cohort study.
this study is a bit like having your palm read or your fortune told. gives you stuff to think about, but probably in the end you just go with your gut.
