性别偏见或患者对女性医生在妇产科护理中的偏好。

Lukman Thalib
{"title":"性别偏见或患者对女性医生在妇产科护理中的偏好。","authors":"Lukman Thalib","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We read the recent systematic review by Nguyen et al.1 published in your esteemed journal where they discussed the role of men in Obs/Gyn care. They argued that the decline of male doctors specialising in Obs/Gyn care is likely be due to gender bias and called for the attention of medical educators to create a genderinclusive working and training environment as a means of enhancing diversity in Obs/Gyn. It is not surprising that most of the studies that the authors included in their review indicated that women are more comfortable being seen and examined by women rather than men, be it specialists or medical students. Such a preference is manifested globally and not confined to a single ethnic or religious group as the authors found. Given the strong gender preference for women in Obs/Gyn settings, particularly when internal examinations are involved, I wonder if the call for medical educators to socially engineer to work against the wellmanifested women's preference is a healthy recommendation. I would like the authors to reconsider their recommendations in view of the modern evidencebased framework which value the patient's preference to be a key component in modern healthcare provision. Evidencebased medicine (EBM) is built upon three major pillars, namely best evidence, clinical expertise and patient's preference. Ever since David Sackett2 introduced the idea of EBM, the evidencebased community has been promoting the role of patient's preference in clinical practice. As articulated by Montori et al.,3 the patient preference includes patient perspectives, beliefs, expectations, goals for health and life and the processes that individuals use in considering the potential benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences of the management options.4 As such, in the context of Obs/Gyn care, we should consider gender preference for female doctors as a component that promotes better patient satisfaction and not as gender bias that somehow needs to be rectified.","PeriodicalId":520788,"journal":{"name":"The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":"E12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender bias or patient preference for female practitioners in Obs/Gyn care.\",\"authors\":\"Lukman Thalib\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We read the recent systematic review by Nguyen et al.1 published in your esteemed journal where they discussed the role of men in Obs/Gyn care. They argued that the decline of male doctors specialising in Obs/Gyn care is likely be due to gender bias and called for the attention of medical educators to create a genderinclusive working and training environment as a means of enhancing diversity in Obs/Gyn. It is not surprising that most of the studies that the authors included in their review indicated that women are more comfortable being seen and examined by women rather than men, be it specialists or medical students. Such a preference is manifested globally and not confined to a single ethnic or religious group as the authors found. Given the strong gender preference for women in Obs/Gyn settings, particularly when internal examinations are involved, I wonder if the call for medical educators to socially engineer to work against the wellmanifested women's preference is a healthy recommendation. I would like the authors to reconsider their recommendations in view of the modern evidencebased framework which value the patient's preference to be a key component in modern healthcare provision. Evidencebased medicine (EBM) is built upon three major pillars, namely best evidence, clinical expertise and patient's preference. Ever since David Sackett2 introduced the idea of EBM, the evidencebased community has been promoting the role of patient's preference in clinical practice. As articulated by Montori et al.,3 the patient preference includes patient perspectives, beliefs, expectations, goals for health and life and the processes that individuals use in considering the potential benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences of the management options.4 As such, in the context of Obs/Gyn care, we should consider gender preference for female doctors as a component that promotes better patient satisfaction and not as gender bias that somehow needs to be rectified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":520788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"E12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender bias or patient preference for female practitioners in Obs/Gyn care.
We read the recent systematic review by Nguyen et al.1 published in your esteemed journal where they discussed the role of men in Obs/Gyn care. They argued that the decline of male doctors specialising in Obs/Gyn care is likely be due to gender bias and called for the attention of medical educators to create a genderinclusive working and training environment as a means of enhancing diversity in Obs/Gyn. It is not surprising that most of the studies that the authors included in their review indicated that women are more comfortable being seen and examined by women rather than men, be it specialists or medical students. Such a preference is manifested globally and not confined to a single ethnic or religious group as the authors found. Given the strong gender preference for women in Obs/Gyn settings, particularly when internal examinations are involved, I wonder if the call for medical educators to socially engineer to work against the wellmanifested women's preference is a healthy recommendation. I would like the authors to reconsider their recommendations in view of the modern evidencebased framework which value the patient's preference to be a key component in modern healthcare provision. Evidencebased medicine (EBM) is built upon three major pillars, namely best evidence, clinical expertise and patient's preference. Ever since David Sackett2 introduced the idea of EBM, the evidencebased community has been promoting the role of patient's preference in clinical practice. As articulated by Montori et al.,3 the patient preference includes patient perspectives, beliefs, expectations, goals for health and life and the processes that individuals use in considering the potential benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences of the management options.4 As such, in the context of Obs/Gyn care, we should consider gender preference for female doctors as a component that promotes better patient satisfaction and not as gender bias that somehow needs to be rectified.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信