Mark K Ferguson1, Megan Huisingh-Scheetz2, Katherine Thompson2, Kristen Wroblewski3, Jeanne Farnan2, Julissa Acevedo4. 1. Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: mferguso@surgery.bsd.uchicago.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Center for Research Informatics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women do not receive appropriate surgical therapy for lung cancer as often as men. Patient gender may influence treatment recommendations; less is known about the effect of physician gender on recommendations. METHODS: Gender-neutral vignettes representing low-risk, average-risk, and high-risk candidates for lung resection were paired with concordant videos of standardized patients (SPs). Cardiothoracic trainees and practicing thoracic surgeons read a vignette, provided an initial estimate of the percentage risk of major adverse events after lung resection, viewed a video (randomized to male or female SP), provided a final estimate of risk, and ranked the importance of the video in the final risk estimate. RESULTS: Overall, 107 surgeons participated, of whom 90 were men. Initial estimated risks mirrored actual vignette risks: 10.4% ± 9.9 for low risk, 17.6% ± 13.2 for average risk, and 21.0% ± 14.7 for high risk (p < 0.001). After SP videos were viewed and final risk estimates were rendered, there was a significant difference between male and female physicians in the absolute change in estimated risk (p = 0.002), with male physicians having larger changes than female physicians. There was also an effect of SP gender that varied by vignette type (p < 0.001). Increasing video importance scores were directly associated with increasing change in risk scores for average-risk and high-risk vignette/video combinations (p < 0.001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in estimating complication risk for lung resection candidates are related to physician and patient gender. This may influence recommendations for surgical treatment. Understanding such differences may help reduce inequities in treatment recommendations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Women do not receive appropriate surgical therapy for lung cancer as often as men. Patient gender may influence treatment recommendations; less is known about the effect of physician gender on recommendations. METHODS: Gender-neutral vignettes representing low-risk, average-risk, and high-risk candidates for lung resection were paired with concordant videos of standardized patients (SPs). Cardiothoracic trainees and practicing thoracic surgeons read a vignette, provided an initial estimate of the percentage risk of major adverse events after lung resection, viewed a video (randomized to male or female SP), provided a final estimate of risk, and ranked the importance of the video in the final risk estimate. RESULTS: Overall, 107 surgeons participated, of whom 90 were men. Initial estimated risks mirrored actual vignette risks: 10.4% ± 9.9 for low risk, 17.6% ± 13.2 for average risk, and 21.0% ± 14.7 for high risk (p < 0.001). After SP videos were viewed and final risk estimates were rendered, there was a significant difference between male and female physicians in the absolute change in estimated risk (p = 0.002), with male physicians having larger changes than female physicians. There was also an effect of SP gender that varied by vignette type (p < 0.001). Increasing video importance scores were directly associated with increasing change in risk scores for average-risk and high-risk vignette/video combinations (p < 0.001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in estimating complication risk for lung resection candidates are related to physician and patient gender. This may influence recommendations for surgical treatment. Understanding such differences may help reduce inequities in treatment recommendations.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Damien J LaPar; Castigliano M Bhamidipati; David A Harris; Benjamin D Kozower; David R Jones; Irving L Kron; Gorav Ailawadi; Christine L Lau Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: K A Schulman; J A Berlin; W Harless; J F Kerner; S Sistrunk; B J Gersh; R Dubé; C K Taleghani; J E Burke; S Williams; J M Eisenberg; J J Escarce Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Donna Buono; Judith S Jacobson; Russell B McBride; Wei Yann Tsai; Kathie Ann Joseph; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lisa R Shugarman; Katherine Mack; Melony E S Sorbero; Haijun Tian; Arvind K Jain; J Scott Ashwood; Steven M Asch Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard Warwick; Michael Shackcloth; Neeraj Mediratta; Richard Page; James McShane; Mathew Shaw; Michael Poullis Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Mark K Ferguson; Katherine Thompson; Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Jeanne Farnan; Josh A Hemmerich; Kris Slawinski; Julissa Acevedo; Sang Mee Lee; Marko Rojnica; Stephen Small Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stefania Rizzo; Francesco Petrella; Claudia Bardoni; Lorenzo Bramati; Andrea Cara; Shehab Mohamed; Davide Radice; Giorgio Raia; Filippo Del Grande; Lorenzo Spaggiari Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.244