Physician Characteristics Associated With Bias in Contraceptive Recommendations [ID: 1349236]

Natalie DiCenzo, Kristyn Brandi, Kylie Getz, Glenmarie Matthews
{"title":"Physician Characteristics Associated With Bias in Contraceptive Recommendations [ID: 1349236]","authors":"Natalie DiCenzo, Kristyn Brandi, Kylie Getz, Glenmarie Matthews","doi":"10.1097/01.aog.0000929760.23214.eb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the effect of obstetrician–gynecologist characteristics on contraceptive recommendations for patients of various racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. METHODS: U.S. obstetrician–gynecologists were administered an online survey depicting photographic scenarios of reproductive-aged women of differing races (White, Black, Latina, Asian) and described socioeconomic status (SES) (high versus low), with all other factors identical, and asked to provide contraceptive recommendations. We used logistic regression to analyze recommendation differences based on physician and patient characteristics. Institutional review board approval was obtained. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five total respondents were included: 55% attending physicians, 45% trainees (residents/fellows); 73% White, 27% non-White. Among all patients: Non-White physicians had significantly lower odds of recommending tubal (odds ratio [OR] 0.493), vaginal ring (OR 0.401), and patch (OR 0.513) compared to White physicians. Non-White physicians had significantly higher odds of recommending any long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (OR 1.846) and condoms (OR 1.438) compared to White physicians. Trainees had significantly lower odds of recommending tubal (OR 0.632), condoms (OR 0.595), pills (OR 0.428), vaginal ring (OR 0.326), and patch (OR 0.536) compared to attendings. Trainees had significantly higher odds of recommending any LARC (OR 18.374) and medroxyprogesterone injection (OR 1.797) compared to attendings. All physicians had a significantly lower odds of recommending any self-administered contraceptive method to Black high-SES patients compared to White high-SES patients (OR 0.418). Other variations were noted but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In our study, contraceptive recommendations differed by race and training level of the recommending physician and by patients' perceived race and SES. This suggests that physician bias contributes to contraceptive recommendations.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000929760.23214.eb","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the effect of obstetrician–gynecologist characteristics on contraceptive recommendations for patients of various racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. METHODS: U.S. obstetrician–gynecologists were administered an online survey depicting photographic scenarios of reproductive-aged women of differing races (White, Black, Latina, Asian) and described socioeconomic status (SES) (high versus low), with all other factors identical, and asked to provide contraceptive recommendations. We used logistic regression to analyze recommendation differences based on physician and patient characteristics. Institutional review board approval was obtained. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five total respondents were included: 55% attending physicians, 45% trainees (residents/fellows); 73% White, 27% non-White. Among all patients: Non-White physicians had significantly lower odds of recommending tubal (odds ratio [OR] 0.493), vaginal ring (OR 0.401), and patch (OR 0.513) compared to White physicians. Non-White physicians had significantly higher odds of recommending any long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (OR 1.846) and condoms (OR 1.438) compared to White physicians. Trainees had significantly lower odds of recommending tubal (OR 0.632), condoms (OR 0.595), pills (OR 0.428), vaginal ring (OR 0.326), and patch (OR 0.536) compared to attendings. Trainees had significantly higher odds of recommending any LARC (OR 18.374) and medroxyprogesterone injection (OR 1.797) compared to attendings. All physicians had a significantly lower odds of recommending any self-administered contraceptive method to Black high-SES patients compared to White high-SES patients (OR 0.418). Other variations were noted but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In our study, contraceptive recommendations differed by race and training level of the recommending physician and by patients' perceived race and SES. This suggests that physician bias contributes to contraceptive recommendations.
医生特征与避孕建议偏倚的关系[j]
前言:我们试图确定妇产科医生的特点对不同种族和社会经济背景患者的避孕建议的影响。方法:美国妇产科医生进行了一项在线调查,描述了不同种族(白人,黑人,拉丁裔,亚洲人)的育龄妇女的照片场景,并描述了社会经济地位(SES)(高与低),所有其他因素相同,并要求提供避孕建议。我们使用逻辑回归分析基于医生和患者特征的推荐差异。已获得机构审查委员会的批准。结果:共纳入135名受访者:主治医生占55%,实习生(住院医师/研究员)占45%;73%白人,27%非白人。在所有患者中:与白人医生相比,非白人医生推荐输卵管(比值比[OR] 0.493)、阴道环(OR 0.401)和贴片(OR 0.513)的几率显著低于白人医生。与白人医生相比,非白人医生推荐任何长效可逆避孕(LARC) (OR为1.846)和避孕套(OR为1.438)的几率明显更高。与主治医生相比,实习生推荐输卵管(OR 0.632)、避孕套(OR 0.595)、避孕药(OR 0.428)、阴道环(OR 0.326)和贴片(OR 0.536)的几率显著低于主治医生。与主治医师相比,实习生推荐LARC (OR 18.374)和甲孕酮注射(OR 1.797)的几率明显更高。与白人高ses患者相比,所有医生向黑人高ses患者推荐任何自我避孕方法的几率都明显较低(OR 0.418)。其他变化也被注意到,但没有达到统计学意义。结论:在我们的研究中,避孕建议因推荐医生的种族和培训水平以及患者感知的种族和社会经济地位而异。这表明医生的偏见影响了避孕建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信