Preferences for gender of family physician among Canadian European-descent and South-Asian immigrant women
Preferences for gender of family physician among Canadian European-descent and South-Asian immigrant women
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/fampra/19.2.146
复制
发表时间：
2002-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Stewart, DE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmad, F;Gupta, H;Stewart, DE
Objective.本研究的目的是调查加拿大欧洲裔（CED）和加拿大南亚裔（CSA）移民妇女对家庭医生（FP）性别的偏好。在多伦多的社区机构进行了一项“现场”调查，以确定在各种医疗保健方案下对FP性别的偏好：整体医疗保健;性别敏感的检查;情绪问题;一般疾病;和危及生命的条件。94名妇女回答了这项调查（CED = 50，CSA = 44），回答率为77.3%。对于所有的医疗保健方案，CED和CSA妇女同样表示，要么偏好女性FP或没有偏好。超过三分之二的女性更喜欢女性FP进行妇科检查（CED，72.9%; CSA，83.7%）或私人身体部位暴露检查（CED，72%; CSA，81.8%）。对于“情感问题”，一半的女性更喜欢女性FP，另一半则没有偏好。在“整体保健”方面也观察到类似的模式，与CED妇女（53.2%）相比，CSA妇女（60.5%）对女医生的偏好有所转变。对于“整体医疗保健”方案，在过去5年内，偏好女性FP的CED和CSA女性看女医生的频率更高（CED，P小于或等于0.01; CSA，P小于或等于0.05），并将“积极”的社会技能更多地归因于女性医生（CED，P小于或等于0.01; CSA，P小于或等于0.01）与对FP性别无偏好的女性相比。然而，女性FP偏好的CED女性更有可能同时患有女性FP（P小于或等于0.01），并且与无偏好的CED女性相比，对女性医生的过去经历的评价较高（P小于或等于0.01），而对男性医生的评价较低（P小于或等于0.05）。在CSA组中，偏好女性FP的女性更有可能失业（P小于或等于0.01），社会支持更低（P小于或等于0.01）。尽管相似的医生性别偏好模式，这些偏好的相关因素显示CED和CSA妇女之间的一些差异。
Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate expressed preferences for family physician (FP) gender among Canadian European-descent (CED) and Canadian South-Asian (CSA) immigrant women.Method. An 'on-site' survey was conducted in community-based institutions in Toronto in order to determine preferences for the gender of FP under various health care scenarios: overall health care; gender-sensitive examinations; emotional problems; general ailments; and life-threatening conditions.Results. Ninety-four women responded to this survey (CED = 50, CSA = 44), response rate 77.3%. For all health care scenarios, CED and CSA women similarly expressed either a preference for a female FP or no preference. More than two-thirds of women preferred a female FP for gynaecological examinations (CED, 72.9%; CSA, 83.7%) or examinations with private body part exposure (CED, 72%; CSA, 81.8%). For 'emotional problems', half of the women preferred a female FP and the other half had no preference. A similar pattern was observed for 'overall health care', with some shift to female physician preference among CSA women (60.5%) compared with CED women (53.2%). For the 'overall health care' scenario, CED and CSA women who preferred a female FP had a higher frequency of seeing female physicians within the last 5 years (CED, P less than or equal to0.01; CSA, P less than or equal to0.05), and attributed 'positive' social skills more to female physicians (CED, P less than or equal to0.01; CSA, P less than or equal to0.01) compared with women with no preference for the gender of the FP. Yet, CED women with a female FP preference were more likely to have a concurrent female FP (P less than or equal to 0.01), and to rate past experiences with female physicians as high (P less than or equal to 0.01) and with male physicians as low (P less than or equal to 0.05) compared with CED women with no preference. In the CSA group, women with a preference for a female FP were more likely to be unemployed (P less than or equal to 0.01) and have low social support (P less than or equal to 0.01).Conclusions. Despite similar physician gender preference patterns, factors associated with these preferences show some differences between CED and CSA women.