女性和男性泌尿妇科外科医生商业患者评价中的性别差异

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
M. Mueller, Chen Chen, J. Geynisman-Tan, C. Bretschneider, S. Collins, C. Lewicky-Gaupp, O. Brown, K. Kenton
{"title":"女性和男性泌尿妇科外科医生商业患者评价中的性别差异","authors":"M. Mueller, Chen Chen, J. Geynisman-Tan, C. Bretschneider, S. Collins, C. Lewicky-Gaupp, O. Brown, K. Kenton","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The objective of our study was to describe differences in commercial patient reviews of women and men urogynecologic surgeons. Materials and Methods Reviews of surgeons on Healthgrades.com in 4 metropolitan areas were included. Based on the qualitative assessment using qualitative content analysis of major and minor elements, we defined 4 theme categories: global experience, social interaction, technical skills, and ancillary aspects, each embedded with discrete elements. Differences in proportions of mentioned themes as well as quantitative ratings were evaluated by sex with the appropriate statistical tests. Results Three hundred sixty-four patient reviews (51% for women surgeons and 49% for men surgeons) were identified for 141 gynecologic surgeons self-identifying as “urogynecologists.” The majority of the cohort (77%) held subspecialty certification in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Reviews of women demonstrated a lower mean quantitative “likelihood to recommend” score compared with men (4.0 vs 4.3, P = 0.002) on the 5-point scale. Women received more mention in comfort (52% vs 40%, P = 0.023) and professionalism (19% vs 9%, P = 0.007) themes and less mention with respect to surgical outcomes (28% vs 53%, P < 0.001) and technical skills (5% vs 15%, P = 0.011) compared with men. Conclusions Commercial online patient reviews for urogynecologic surgeons reveal sex bias with women receiving lower scores overall and more comments related to social interaction and fewer comments related to surgical outcomes and technical skill compared with men.","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 1","pages":"173 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sex Differences in Commercial Patient Reviews of Women and Men Urogynecologic Surgeons\",\"authors\":\"M. Mueller, Chen Chen, J. Geynisman-Tan, C. Bretschneider, S. Collins, C. Lewicky-Gaupp, O. Brown, K. Kenton\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The objective of our study was to describe differences in commercial patient reviews of women and men urogynecologic surgeons. Materials and Methods Reviews of surgeons on Healthgrades.com in 4 metropolitan areas were included. Based on the qualitative assessment using qualitative content analysis of major and minor elements, we defined 4 theme categories: global experience, social interaction, technical skills, and ancillary aspects, each embedded with discrete elements. Differences in proportions of mentioned themes as well as quantitative ratings were evaluated by sex with the appropriate statistical tests. Results Three hundred sixty-four patient reviews (51% for women surgeons and 49% for men surgeons) were identified for 141 gynecologic surgeons self-identifying as “urogynecologists.” The majority of the cohort (77%) held subspecialty certification in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Reviews of women demonstrated a lower mean quantitative “likelihood to recommend” score compared with men (4.0 vs 4.3, P = 0.002) on the 5-point scale. Women received more mention in comfort (52% vs 40%, P = 0.023) and professionalism (19% vs 9%, P = 0.007) themes and less mention with respect to surgical outcomes (28% vs 53%, P < 0.001) and technical skills (5% vs 15%, P = 0.011) compared with men. Conclusions Commercial online patient reviews for urogynecologic surgeons reveal sex bias with women receiving lower scores overall and more comments related to social interaction and fewer comments related to surgical outcomes and technical skill compared with men.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"173 - 176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001155\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们研究的目的是描述女性和男性泌尿生殖外科医生商业患者评价的差异。材料和方法纳入了Healthgrades.com上4个大都市地区外科医生的评论。基于对主要和次要元素进行定性内容分析的定性评估,我们定义了4个主题类别:全球经验、社会互动、技术技能和辅助方面,每个主题都嵌入了离散元素。通过适当的统计测试,按性别评估上述主题的比例差异以及定量评级。结果对141名自称为“泌尿系生态学家”的妇科外科医生进行了364次患者回顾(女外科医生51%,男外科医生49%),其中大多数(77%)拥有女性盆腔医学和重建外科的亚专业证书。在5分量表上,对女性的审查显示,与男性相比,女性的平均定量“推荐可能性”得分较低(4.0比4.3,P=0.002)。与男性相比,女性在舒适度(52%对40%,P=0.023)和专业性(19%对9%,P=0.007)主题方面的提及较多,而在手术结果(28%对53%,P<0.001)和技术技能(5%对15%,P=0.011)方面的提及较少。结论泌尿生殖外科医生的商业在线患者评论显示,与男性相比,女性总体得分较低,与社会互动相关的评论较多,与手术结果和技术技能相关的评论较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sex Differences in Commercial Patient Reviews of Women and Men Urogynecologic Surgeons
Objective The objective of our study was to describe differences in commercial patient reviews of women and men urogynecologic surgeons. Materials and Methods Reviews of surgeons on Healthgrades.com in 4 metropolitan areas were included. Based on the qualitative assessment using qualitative content analysis of major and minor elements, we defined 4 theme categories: global experience, social interaction, technical skills, and ancillary aspects, each embedded with discrete elements. Differences in proportions of mentioned themes as well as quantitative ratings were evaluated by sex with the appropriate statistical tests. Results Three hundred sixty-four patient reviews (51% for women surgeons and 49% for men surgeons) were identified for 141 gynecologic surgeons self-identifying as “urogynecologists.” The majority of the cohort (77%) held subspecialty certification in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Reviews of women demonstrated a lower mean quantitative “likelihood to recommend” score compared with men (4.0 vs 4.3, P = 0.002) on the 5-point scale. Women received more mention in comfort (52% vs 40%, P = 0.023) and professionalism (19% vs 9%, P = 0.007) themes and less mention with respect to surgical outcomes (28% vs 53%, P < 0.001) and technical skills (5% vs 15%, P = 0.011) compared with men. Conclusions Commercial online patient reviews for urogynecologic surgeons reveal sex bias with women receiving lower scores overall and more comments related to social interaction and fewer comments related to surgical outcomes and technical skill compared with men.
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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