Pregnancy outcomes in female physicians in procedural versus non-procedural specialties

Background: Procedural based medical specialties require a longer training period and more intensive physical demands. The impact of working in procedural versus nonprocedural fields on pregnancy outcomes is not well understood. Methods: Data from 1559 US attending female physician mothers was gathered via an anonymous, IRB-approved online survey. Results: Of the cohort, 400 (25.7%) reported practicing in a procedural field. Women in procedural fields were slightly older at the time of their most recent pregnancy. Rates of assistive reproductive technology use (procedural: 20.2% vs nonprocedural: 23.3%, P = 0.2), missing work during pregnancy (28.2% vs 24.5%, P = 0.13), cesarean delivery rate (36.0% vs 34.5%, P = 0.61), and missed work due to preterm labor (12.3% vs 12.5%, P = 0.91) were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Although proceduralists were more likely to delay pregnancy, women in procedural fields had comparable rates of reproductive assistance, cesarean delivery, and missed work due to pregnancy-related complications despite the perceived challenges facing this group. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.