What's Gender Got to Do With It: Difference in the Proportion of Traditionally Female Cases Performed by General Urologists of Each Gender
What's Gender Got to Do With It: Difference in the Proportion of Traditionally Female Cases Performed by General Urologists of Each Gender
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.urology.2017.12.040
复制
发表时间：
2018-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Hwang, Kathleen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rotker, Katherine;Iosifescu, Sarah;Hwang, Kathleen
目的探讨泌尿外科医师执业模式中的手术量特征，鉴于长期以来的理解，但未经证实的假设，即非-研究员培训的女性普通泌尿科医生与同等培训的男性同行相比，进行更多的泌尿妇科手术。材料和方法从2000年至2015年的认证和重新认证泌尿科医生的病例日志数据来自美国医学委员会。泌尿科选择37个现行程序术语（CPT）代码来代表传统的泌尿妇科病例。Logistic回归分析模型被用来确定在认证期间由传统的泌尿妇科病例组成的总CPT代码的百分比。结果回顾了2000年至2015年4032名非奖学金培训的全科泌尿外科医生的病例日志，其中297人为女性，3735人为男性。泌尿妇科病例占女性CPT编码总数的1.27%，占男性CPT编码总数的0.59%（P <0.001），增加了2.2倍（P <0.001）。无论认证期间，地理位置，人口密度，或全职与兼职employees.CONCLUSION持续存在统计学上的显着差异代表了一个显着更大的百分比记录的非奖学金培训的女性普通泌尿科医生的总病例比他们的非奖学金培训，通才男同事。这两个机构所处理的案件在全部案件中所占的百分比非常小。然而，它支持一种信念，即男性和女性普通泌尿科医生的患者人群不同，这可能会影响培训或职业选择。(c)2018爱思唯尔公司
OBJECTIVE To examine surgical case volume characteristics in certifying urologists to evaluate practice patterns, given the long-standing understanding but unproven hypothesis that non-fellowship trained female general urologists perform more urogynecologic procedures compared with their equally trained male counterparts.MATERIALS AND METHODS Case log data from certifying and recertifying urologists from 2000 to 2015 were obtained from the American Board of Urology. Thirty-seven Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were chosen to represent traditionally urogynecologic cases. Logistic regression analysis models were used to determine the percentage of total CPT codes logged during the certification period made up by traditionally urogynecologic cases. Male and female non-fellowship trained, self-described general urologists were compared.RESULTS The case logs of 4032 non-fellowship trained general urologists were reviewed from 2000 to 2015, 297 of whom were female and 3735 of whom were male. Urogynecologic cases made up 1.27% of the total CPT codes logged by the women and 0.59% of those codes logged by the men (P < .001), an increase of 2.2 times (P < .001). This statistically significant difference persisted regardless of certification period, geographic location, population density, or full-time vs part-time employment.CONCLUSION Traditional urogynecologic cases represented a significantly greater percentage of the total cases logged by non-fellowship trained female general urologists compared with their non-fellowship trained, generalist male colleagues. The percentage of total cases performed by both is very small. However, it supports a belief that patient populations differ for male and female general urologists, which may impact training or career choices. (c) 2018 Elsevier Inc.