Number of arguments for (n = 714) work-hour limitations given by 224 male and 48 female surgeons, lawyers, and pilots (overall 7 missing values).

<p>Number of arguments for (n = 714) work-hour limitations given by 224 male and 48 female surgeons, lawyers, and pilots (overall 7 missing values).</p

Number of arguments against (n = 362) work-hour limitations given by 181 male and 38 female surgeons, lawyers and pilots (overall 60 missing values).

<p>Number of arguments against (n = 362) work-hour limitations given by 181 male and 38 female surgeons, lawyers and pilots (overall 60 missing values).</p

Number of arguments against (n = 362) work-hour limitations given by 64 surgeons, 65 lawyers, and 92 pilots (overall 58 missing values).

<p>Number of arguments against (n = 362) work-hour limitations given by 64 surgeons, 65 lawyers, and 92 pilots (overall 58 missing values).</p

Number of arguments for (n = 716) work-hour limitations given by 65 surgeons, 90 lawyers, and 120 pilots (overall 4 missing values).

<p>Number of arguments for (n = 716) work-hour limitations given by 65 surgeons, 90 lawyers, and 120 pilots (overall 4 missing values).</p

Demographics of the 279 participants.

<p>Values in parentheses are percentages.</p><p>*Five-point Likert scale: 1 = completely disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = rather agree, 5 = completely agree.</p><p>Demographics of the 279 participants.</p

Examples of surgeons', lawyers', and pilots' arguments for work-hour limitations in general and in medicine.

<p>Examples of surgeons', lawyers', and pilots' arguments for work-hour limitations in general and in medicine.</p

Demographic data of the participants (N = 492).

<p>Values in parentheses are percentages.</p><p>*Type U: university hospitals, Type A: large referral centers, Type B3: regional or specialized hospitals, Type B2/B1: small regional surgical. departments.</p

Factors that discourage the choice of surgery as a career choice.

<p>Factors that discourage the choice of surgery as a career choice.</p

The Surgeon’s Perspective: Promoting and Discouraging Factors for Choosing a Career in Surgery as Perceived by Surgeons

<div><p>Background</p><p>The aim of this study was to identify the factors perceived by surgeons that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today’s graduates. In addition, it examined whether the perspectives of surgeons in different professional situations converges. The content of work, contextual work conditions, and calling to this job are discussed in the context of choosing surgery as a career.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Eight hundred sixty-nine surgeons were asked to answer open-ended questions regarding the factors that promote surgery as an attractive or unattractive career choice for today’s graduates. Four hundred ninety-two surgeons participated, and 1,525 statements were analyzed using Mayring’s content-analyses method. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences among hierarchical positions.</p><p>Results</p><p>With respect to the factors that promote surgery as a profession, 40.8% (209/492) of the surgeons stated that surgery is a calling, 29.1% (149/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the positive task characteristics, and 12.9% (66/492) of the surgeons provided statements related to the positive contextual factors. With respect to the factors that discourage surgery as a profession, 45.7% (234/492) of the surgeons provided at least one argument related to the discouraging work characteristics, and 67.6% (346/492) of the surgeons provided problematic contextual characteristics.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>This study emphasizes the importance of the calling to surgery as an important factor for choosing surgery as a career. However, the extensive workload, training, and poor work-family balance have been identified as factors that discourage graduates from choosing surgery as a career. The identified positive factors could be used to attract and maintain graduates in surgical disciplines.</p></div

Discouraging statements, with the number of participants for categories and subcategories listed by hierarchical position.^*

<p>*Factors cited in multiple subcategories were counted as one for the respective main category.</p