Surgical subspecialist distribution and Social Vulnerability Indices in the inland empire

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY
Brandon Shin BS, David Shin BS, Yasmine Siagian BS, Jairo Campos BA, M. Daniel Wongworawat MD, Marti F. Baum MD
{"title":"Surgical subspecialist distribution and Social Vulnerability Indices in the inland empire","authors":"Brandon Shin BS,&nbsp;David Shin BS,&nbsp;Yasmine Siagian BS,&nbsp;Jairo Campos BA,&nbsp;M. Daniel Wongworawat MD,&nbsp;Marti F. Baum MD","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Access to surgical specialty care differs based on geographic location, insurance status, and subspecialty type. This study uses the Inland Empire as a model to determine the relationship between Social Vulnerability Indices (SVIs), surgeon sex, and surgical subspecialty distribution.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>823 census tracts from the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) SVI 2018 database were compared against 992 surgeons within 30 distinct subspecialties. This data was retrieved from the American Medical Association's (AMA) 2018 Physician Masterfile. Spearman's bivariate and multiple regression were used to compare the relationship between SVI and number of surgical subspecialists within each census tract.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were approximately 3.34 male and 0.35 female surgeons per census tract (<em>t</em>(267) = 7.74, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Significant inverse relationships existed between Cosmetic surgery, Urology and Minority status/language (ρ = −0.131 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.028], <em>p</em> = 0.016; ρ = −0.142 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.039], <em>p</em> = 0.010, respectively); General surgery, Socioeconomic status (ρ = −0.118 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.014], <em>p</em> = 0.027), and Household composition/disability (ρ = −0.203 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.102], <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001); Hand surgery and Socioeconomic status (ρ = −0.114 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.010], <em>p</em> = 0.031); Otolaryngology, Housing type/transportation (ρ = −0.102 [95 % CI −1.000 to 0.001], <em>p</em> = 0.047), and Overall Social Vulnerability (ρ = −0.105 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.001], <em>p</em> = 0.043). Multiple regression analyses reinforced these findings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study concludes that social vulnerability is predictive of, and significantly linked to, differences in distribution of surgical subspecialty and surgeon gender. Future research should investigate recruitment of a diverse surgical workforce, infrastructural barriers to care, and differences in quality of care.</div></div><div><h3>Key message</h3><div>Our work demonstrates complex relationships between surgical subspecialist distribution, surgeon gender, and a census tract's various Social Vulnerability Indices. Thus, this research can serve to continue educating surgeons and other healthcare providers about the importance of social determinants of health in the construction of healthcare policy and practice, as well as incentivizing equitable recruitment of a diverse population of surgeons.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":"21 ","pages":"Pages 27-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001179/pdfft?md5=d02d874d0ad6d8dae3cb70e8afdd9626&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024001179-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Access to surgical specialty care differs based on geographic location, insurance status, and subspecialty type. This study uses the Inland Empire as a model to determine the relationship between Social Vulnerability Indices (SVIs), surgeon sex, and surgical subspecialty distribution.

Methods

823 census tracts from the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) SVI 2018 database were compared against 992 surgeons within 30 distinct subspecialties. This data was retrieved from the American Medical Association's (AMA) 2018 Physician Masterfile. Spearman's bivariate and multiple regression were used to compare the relationship between SVI and number of surgical subspecialists within each census tract.

Results

There were approximately 3.34 male and 0.35 female surgeons per census tract (t(267) = 7.74, p < 0.001). Significant inverse relationships existed between Cosmetic surgery, Urology and Minority status/language (ρ = −0.131 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.028], p = 0.016; ρ = −0.142 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.039], p = 0.010, respectively); General surgery, Socioeconomic status (ρ = −0.118 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.014], p = 0.027), and Household composition/disability (ρ = −0.203 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.102], p < 0.001); Hand surgery and Socioeconomic status (ρ = −0.114 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.010], p = 0.031); Otolaryngology, Housing type/transportation (ρ = −0.102 [95 % CI −1.000 to 0.001], p = 0.047), and Overall Social Vulnerability (ρ = −0.105 [95 % CI −1.000 to −0.001], p = 0.043). Multiple regression analyses reinforced these findings.

Conclusions

This study concludes that social vulnerability is predictive of, and significantly linked to, differences in distribution of surgical subspecialty and surgeon gender. Future research should investigate recruitment of a diverse surgical workforce, infrastructural barriers to care, and differences in quality of care.

Key message

Our work demonstrates complex relationships between surgical subspecialist distribution, surgeon gender, and a census tract's various Social Vulnerability Indices. Thus, this research can serve to continue educating surgeons and other healthcare providers about the importance of social determinants of health in the construction of healthcare policy and practice, as well as incentivizing equitable recruitment of a diverse population of surgeons.
内陆帝国的外科亚专科医生分布和社会弱势指数
背景获得外科专科护理的机会因地理位置、保险状况和亚专科类型而异。本研究以内陆帝国为模型,确定社会弱势指数(SVI)、外科医生性别和外科亚专科分布之间的关系。方法将美国疾病控制中心(CDC)2018 年 SVI 数据库中的 823 个人口普查区与 30 个不同亚专科中的 992 名外科医生进行比较。这些数据取自美国医学会(AMA)2018 年医师主档案。斯皮尔曼双变量和多元回归用于比较每个人口普查区内 SVI 与外科亚专科医生数量之间的关系。结果每个人口普查区约有 3.34 名男性外科医生和 0.35 名女性外科医生(t(267) = 7.74,p <0.001)。美容外科、泌尿外科和少数民族身份/语言(ρ = -0.131 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.028],p = 0.016;ρ = -0.142 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.039],p = 0.010);普通外科、社会经济地位(ρ = -0.118 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.014],p = 0.027)和家庭组成/残疾(ρ = -0.203 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.102],p < 0.001);手部手术和社会经济地位(ρ = -0.114 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.010],p = 0.031);耳鼻喉科、住房类型/交通(ρ = -0.102 [95 % CI -1.000 to 0.001],p = 0.047)和整体社会脆弱性(ρ = -0.105 [95 % CI -1.000 to -0.001],p = 0.043)。本研究得出结论,社会脆弱性可预测外科亚专业分布和外科医生性别的差异,并与之有显著联系。未来的研究应调查多元化外科队伍的招聘、医疗基础设施障碍以及医疗质量差异。关键信息我们的工作表明,外科亚专科分布、外科医生性别和人口普查区的各种社会脆弱性指数之间存在复杂的关系。因此,这项研究有助于继续教育外科医生和其他医疗服务提供者,让他们了解健康的社会决定因素在医疗政策和实践建设中的重要性,并激励他们公平地招聘多样化的外科医生。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
×
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