Generational conflicts among doctors working in legal medicine?: Results of an online survey in German-speaking countries, part II

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: At least three generations of physicians (baby boomers, generations X and Y) are currently working together in institutes for legal medicine. Whether this generational diversity leads to conflicts in their working life has not yet been investigated. Objective: The aim of the study was to survey the existence of generational conflicts as well as the generations’ mutual expectations. Material and methods: An online questionnaire with up to 53 questions on work strain and job satisfaction, specialist training, career, research, professional vs. personal life, and generational change was sent to 436 physicians (residents and specialists) practicing legal medicine in German-speaking countries. Results: In total, 181 questionnaires were filled out completely (response rate: 41.5%) and all but 1 could be evaluated. Of the respondents 73% perceived a generational conflict. For residents (gen. Y), this was mainly due to different values, priorities or views of the generations and the issue of work-life balance, while for specialists most problems concerned matters of work-life balance (gen. X) and interpersonal issues (baby boomer and gen. X). Respondents of all generations wished for a greater sense of collegiality and team spirit among colleagues. Conclusion: There is evidence of generational change with potential for conflict in institutes for legal medicine. Some problem areas could be mitigated by open communication of needs, appreciative cooperation, mutual understanding of different requirements and wishes, and openness to change and optimization.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Heger, A., & Ritz-Timme, S. (2024). Generational conflicts among doctors working in legal medicine?: Results of an online survey in German-speaking countries, part II. Rechtsmedizin, 34(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-024-00684-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free