4.5 Article

Patient perceptions of female surgeons: how surgeon demeanor and type of surgery affect patient preference

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 59-64

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.020

关键词

Women in surgery; Female surgeons; Surgical education; Surgeon-patient relationship; Patient perceptions

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As more women become surgeons, knowledge of patient perceptions is necessary to educate this new pool of surgeons on how to maximize patient trust and foster the optimal surgeon-patient relationship. Materials and methods: Patients in a general medicine clinic in San Francisco were surveyed. Study respondents read one of the eight short scenarios that differed by surgeon gender, surgery type (lung cancer versus breast cancer), and surgeon demeanor (more masculin-dagentic versus more feminine-communal). In all scenarios, the surgeon was described as accomplished and well trained. After reading the short description, respondents rated five items from 0-5, which were averaged to create a measure of preference. Results: Based on the 476 completed surveys, respondents did not have a significant preference for either female or male surgeons (P = 0.76). We found a significant interaction in respondent choice between the surgeon demeanor and the type of surgery (P < 0.05). Respondents preferred an agentic surgeon for lung cancer surgery and a communal surgeon for breast cancer surgery regardless of surgeon or respondent gender. No other interactions or main effects were statistically significant. Conclusions: Our respondents did not overtly prefer a surgeon based on gender, which suggests that patients may not contribute to the traditional gender biases reported by female surgeons. Further work needs to be done to determine if our results can be replicated in different geographic regions and if there is gender stereotyping within the field of surgery. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据