内科住院医师叙述性评估中的性别与职称使用。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Journal of women's health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1089/jwh.2023.0730
Jaeda Pitlick, Emily Olson, Andrew Halvorsen, Karen Fischer, Ivana T Croghan, Hannah Nordhues
{"title":"内科住院医师叙述性评估中的性别与职称使用。","authors":"Jaeda Pitlick, Emily Olson, Andrew Halvorsen, Karen Fischer, Ivana T Croghan, Hannah Nordhues","doi":"10.1089/jwh.2023.0730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Residency is a time of personal and professional growth. Resident assessment and feedback are an integral part of that process. However, assessment may be influenced by various types of bias, including gender bias. Women are less likely than men to be identified by their professional titles in many settings. The use of professional titles for residents in written assessments is unknown and may be a marker of bias. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess for differences and trends regarding the use of professional and personal titles in formal resident assessments related to gender-based resident-faculty pairs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Electronic assessments of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) internal medicine residents from the 2019-2020 academic year were used. Professional title use was analyzed, as it relates to resident-faculty gendered dyads, among other variables. The primary outcome of professional title usage was split into a binary variable by professional versus other titles and analyzed using logistic regression and random-effects model. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We analyzed 1,363 unique electronic assessments (37.8% from female faculty). Female residents were more likely to be addressed by a professional title than their male colleagues (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.4; <i>p</i> = 0.02). We found no difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty gendered dyads. After adjusting for repeated faculty and resident encounters with random-effects model, secondary analysis found no significant difference in evaluation of word count between gendered dyads. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analysis found no significant difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty dyads. In our analysis, female residents were significantly more likely to have their professional title used on assessments than male residents.</p>","PeriodicalId":17636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health","volume":" ","pages":"1404-1408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender and Professional Title Use in Internal Medicine Resident Narrative Assessments.\",\"authors\":\"Jaeda Pitlick, Emily Olson, Andrew Halvorsen, Karen Fischer, Ivana T Croghan, Hannah Nordhues\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jwh.2023.0730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Residency is a time of personal and professional growth. Resident assessment and feedback are an integral part of that process. However, assessment may be influenced by various types of bias, including gender bias. Women are less likely than men to be identified by their professional titles in many settings. The use of professional titles for residents in written assessments is unknown and may be a marker of bias. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To assess for differences and trends regarding the use of professional and personal titles in formal resident assessments related to gender-based resident-faculty pairs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Electronic assessments of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) internal medicine residents from the 2019-2020 academic year were used. Professional title use was analyzed, as it relates to resident-faculty gendered dyads, among other variables. The primary outcome of professional title usage was split into a binary variable by professional versus other titles and analyzed using logistic regression and random-effects model. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We analyzed 1,363 unique electronic assessments (37.8% from female faculty). Female residents were more likely to be addressed by a professional title than their male colleagues (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.4; <i>p</i> = 0.02). We found no difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty gendered dyads. After adjusting for repeated faculty and resident encounters with random-effects model, secondary analysis found no significant difference in evaluation of word count between gendered dyads. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analysis found no significant difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty dyads. In our analysis, female residents were significantly more likely to have their professional title used on assessments than male residents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of women's health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1404-1408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of women's health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2023.0730\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2023.0730","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:住院医师培训是个人和专业成长的过程。住院医生的评估和反馈是这一过程中不可或缺的一部分。然而,评估可能会受到各种偏见的影响,包括性别偏见。在很多情况下,女性比男性更不容易被冠以专业职称。住院医师在书面评估中使用专业职称的情况尚不清楚,这可能是偏见的一个标志。目标:评估住院医师正式评估中使用专业职称和个人职称与住院医师-教师性别配对的差异和趋势。方法:对研究生一年级学生进行电子评估:使用 2019-2020 学年研究生一年级(PGY1)内科住院医师的电子评估。除其他变量外,还分析了与住院医师-教师性别配对相关的专业职称使用情况。专业职称使用情况这一主要结果按专业职称与其他职称分为二元变量,并使用逻辑回归和随机效应模型进行分析。结果我们分析了 1,363 份独特的电子评估(37.8% 来自女性教员)。与男性同事相比,女性住院医师更有可能使用专业职称(几率比 [OR],1.7;置信区间 [CI],1.2-2.4;P = 0.02)。我们发现,住院医师-教员性别二元组在专业职称使用上没有差异。在使用随机效应模型对教员和住院医师的重复接触进行调整后,二次分析发现,不同性别的二人组在字数评估方面没有显著差异。结论分析发现,住院医师与教员之间在职称使用上没有明显差异。在我们的分析中,女性住院医师在评估中使用专业职称的可能性明显高于男性住院医师。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender and Professional Title Use in Internal Medicine Resident Narrative Assessments.

Background: Residency is a time of personal and professional growth. Resident assessment and feedback are an integral part of that process. However, assessment may be influenced by various types of bias, including gender bias. Women are less likely than men to be identified by their professional titles in many settings. The use of professional titles for residents in written assessments is unknown and may be a marker of bias. Objective: To assess for differences and trends regarding the use of professional and personal titles in formal resident assessments related to gender-based resident-faculty pairs. Methods: Electronic assessments of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) internal medicine residents from the 2019-2020 academic year were used. Professional title use was analyzed, as it relates to resident-faculty gendered dyads, among other variables. The primary outcome of professional title usage was split into a binary variable by professional versus other titles and analyzed using logistic regression and random-effects model. Results: We analyzed 1,363 unique electronic assessments (37.8% from female faculty). Female residents were more likely to be addressed by a professional title than their male colleagues (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.4; p = 0.02). We found no difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty gendered dyads. After adjusting for repeated faculty and resident encounters with random-effects model, secondary analysis found no significant difference in evaluation of word count between gendered dyads. Conclusions: The analysis found no significant difference in professional title usage based on resident-faculty dyads. In our analysis, female residents were significantly more likely to have their professional title used on assessments than male residents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of women's health
Journal of women's health 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.70%
发文量
197
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Women''s Health is the primary source of information for meeting the challenges of providing optimal health care for women throughout their lifespan. The Journal delivers cutting-edge advancements in diagnostic procedures, therapeutic protocols for the management of diseases, and innovative research in gender-based biology that impacts patient care and treatment. Journal of Women’s Health coverage includes: -Internal Medicine Endocrinology- Cardiology- Oncology- Obstetrics/Gynecology- Urogynecology- Psychiatry- Neurology- Nutrition- Sex-Based Biology- Complementary Medicine- Sports Medicine- Surgery- Medical Education- Public Policy.
×
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