RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to determine if Asian racial identity was associated with the selection of surgical versus nonsurgical treatments for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). Secondarily, we aimed to determine if there were other demographic or clinical characteristics associated with treatment selection patterns. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched cohort study that examined new patient visits (NPVs) of Asian patients at an academic urogynecology practice in Chicago, IL, USA. We included NPVs with primary diagnoses of anal incontinence, mixed urinary incontinence, stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, or pelvic organ prolapse. We identified Asian patients with self-identified racial identity recorded in the electronic medical records. Every Asian patient was age matched to white patients in a 1:3 ratio. The primary outcome was surgical versus nonsurgical treatment selection for their primary PFD diagnosis. Comparison of demographic and clinical variables between the two groups and multivariate logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: A total of 53 Asian patients and 159 white patients were included in this analysis. Asian patients were less likely to be English speaking (92% vs 100%, p=0.004), endorse history of anxiety (17% vs 43%, p<0.001), and report history of any pelvic surgery (15% vs 34%, p=0.009) than white patients. When controlling for race, age, history of anxiety, depression, prior pelvic surgery, sexual activity, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory, Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory, and Urinary Distress Inventory scores, Asian racial identity (adjusted odds ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.14-0.85]) was independently associated with decreased likelihood of choosing surgical treatments for PFDs. CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients with PFDs were less likely than white patients to undergo surgical treatment for their PFDs despite similar demographic and clinical characteristics.
RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are gender differences in letters of recommendation (LORs) written for residents applying to gynecology surgical fellowships. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Single, academic institution. PATIENTS: LORs for applicants to gynecology oncology, urogynecology, and minimally invasive gynecology fellowships during the 2019-2020 application cycle. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed the linguistic content of the letters for the presence of 4 summary variables and 21 word categories based on previous studies using validated computerized text analysis software. We used multivariable analysis using linear mixed models to compare linguistic characteristics of letters by applicant gender. We performed qualitative content analysis on letters and compared the frequency of code themes by gender. The mixed-method design was planned to allow for analysis of domains not captured in text analysis. Among 680 letters written for 186 applicants, 124 (18.2%) were written for men, and 556 (81.8%) were written for women. There were no differences in the least square mean (standard error) word counts for LORs written for men and women applicants, 465 (20.0) vs 458(9.4) words, p = .74. In multivariable analysis, LORs written for men were found to have higher authentic tone and more risk words (p = .005 and p = .03, respectively). LORs written for women contained more communal (relationship-oriented) words (p = .006). The qualitative analysis demonstrated that ability, interpersonal traits, surgical skills, and research were the most often mentioned themes. Comments about compassion/empathy, leadership potential, teaching, interpersonal skills, and patient rapport were found more often in letters for men. More doubt raisers (words that raise doubt or concern) were present in letters for men, but letters for both genders had similar levels of negative criticism. In contrast, comments on ability, being "drama-free," and self-awareness were found more often in letters for women. CONCLUSION: There were gender differences in LORs written for obstetrics and gynecology surgical subspecialty fellowship applicants indicating the presence of gender bias.