Tanya P Hoke1, Alexander A Berger2,3, Christine C Pan4, Lindsey A Jackson5, William D Winkelman6,7,8, Rachel High9,10, Katherine A Volpe11, Chee Paul Lin12, Holly E Richter13. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic, Reconstructive Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, WIC Suite 10382, 619 19th Street South, 176F, Birmingham, AL, 35249-7333, USA. tanyahokemd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Kaiser San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA, USA. 8. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Texas A & M Health Science Center, Temple, TX, USA. 10. Baylor Scott & White Health, Temple, TX, USA. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 12. Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic, Reconstructive Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, WIC Suite 10382, 619 19th Street South, 176F, Birmingham, AL, 35249-7333, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Understanding patient preferences regarding provider characteristics is an under-explored area in urogynecology. This study aims to describe patient preferences for urogynecologic care, including provider gender, age, experience, and presence of medical trainees. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional, survey-based study assessing patient preferences with a voluntary, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire prior to their first urogynecology consult. A 5-point Likert scale addressing provider gender, age, experience, and presence of trainees was used. Descriptive statistics summarized patient characteristics and provider preferences. Chi-squared (or Fisher's exact) test was used to test for associations. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen women participated from eight sites including all geographic regions across the US; 70.8% identified as white with mean age of 58.5 ± 14.2 years. Urinary incontinence was the most commonly reported symptom (45.9%); 51.4% saw a female provider. The majority of patients saw a provider 45-60 years old (42.8%) with > 15 years' experience (60.9%). Sixty-five percent of patients preferred a female provider; 10% preferred a male provider. Sixteen percent preferred a provider < 45 years old, 36% preferred 45-60 years old, and 11% of patients preferred a provider > 60 years old. Most patients preferred a provider with 5-15 or > 15 years' experience (49% and 46%, respectively). Eleven percent preferred the presence of trainees while 24% preferred trainee absence. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences regarding urogynecologic providers included female gender and provider age 45-60 years old with > 5 years' experience. Further study is needed to identify qualitative components associated with these preferences.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Understanding patient preferences regarding provider characteristics is an under-explored area in urogynecology. This study aims to describe patient preferences for urogynecologic care, including provider gender, age, experience, and presence of medical trainees. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional, survey-based study assessing patient preferences with a voluntary, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire prior to their first urogynecology consult. A 5-point Likert scale addressing provider gender, age, experience, and presence of trainees was used. Descriptive statistics summarized patient characteristics and provider preferences. Chi-squared (or Fisher's exact) test was used to test for associations. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen women participated from eight sites including all geographic regions across the US; 70.8% identified as white with mean age of 58.5 ± 14.2 years. Urinary incontinence was the most commonly reported symptom (45.9%); 51.4% saw a female provider. The majority of patients saw a provider 45-60 years old (42.8%) with > 15 years' experience (60.9%). Sixty-five percent of patients preferred a female provider; 10% preferred a male provider. Sixteen percent preferred a provider < 45 years old, 36% preferred 45-60 years old, and 11% of patients preferred a provider > 60 years old. Most patients preferred a provider with 5-15 or > 15 years' experience (49% and 46%, respectively). Eleven percent preferred the presence of trainees while 24% preferred trainee absence. CONCLUSION:Patient preferences regarding urogynecologic providers included female gender and provider age 45-60 years old with > 5 years' experience. Further study is needed to identify qualitative components associated with these preferences.
Entities:
Keywords:
Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery; Gender; Medical learners; Patient preferences; Training; Urogynecology
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: Emily Gard Marshall; Mylaine Breton; Michael Green; Lynn Edwards; Caitlyn Ayn; Mélanie Ann Smithman; Shannon Ryan Carson; Rachelle Ashcroft; Imaan Bayoumi; Frederick Burge; Véronique Deslauriers; Beverley Lawson; Maria Mathews; Charmaine McPherson; Lauren R Moritz; Sue Nesto; David Stock; Sabrina T Wong; Melissa Andrew Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 2.692