Gender and Language in Letters of Recommendation for Obstetrics and Gynecology Fellowship Applications.

OBJECTIVE: To delineate the use of gender-biased language in letters of recommendation for Obstetrics and Gynecology fellowships and its impact on applicants. DESIGN: Fellowship letters of recommendation from 4 Obstetrics and Gynecology specialties at a single institution in 2020 were included. PRIMARY OUTCOME: frequency of agentic and communal language in letters of recommendation using Linguistics Inquiry Word Count software. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: letter of recommendation length and language utilization by author gender and applicant success measured by interviews and match success. Marginal models were fit to determine if language varied by applicant and writer gender and subspecialty. Modified Poisson regression models were used to determine associations between language and interview receipt. SETTING: Single academic institution (Duke University); 2020 OB/GYN fellowship application cycle. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1216 letters of recommendation submitted by 326 unique applicants for OB/GYN subspecialty fellowships at our institution. RESULTS: Rates of gender-biased language were low (Agentic:1.3%; communal: 0.8%). Agentic term use did not vary by applicant or author gender (p = 0.78 and 0.16) Male authors utilized 19% fewer communal terms than females (p < 0.001). Each 0.25% increase in agentic language was associated with an 18% reduction in the probability of interview invitation at our institution (p = 0.004). Percentage of agentic or communal language was not associated with successful matching into any subspecialty. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in agentic vs communal language based on applicant gender were found in this cohort, though female letter writers wrote longer letters with more communal terms. Increasing agentic terms negatively impacted interview invitation but did not affect successful matching.

A Qualitative Assessment of Patient Experience following Systematic Implementation of Goals of Care Conversations in the Ambulatory Gynecologic Oncology Setting.

Objective: Although skilled goals of care (GOC) conversations are known to reduce aggressive futile end-of-life care, they have not been widely implemented nor standardized in the care of gynecologic malignancies. Clinicians express concern regarding patient readiness and willingness to participate in these conversations, which may be a barrier to GOC discussions. Methods: This is a qualitative study, conducted at an academic institution in the United States, of patients with gynecologic malignancies at high risk of death within six months and who had recently completed a GOC discussion with their oncology clinician during an ambulatory visit. Within 10 days of this conversation, patients were approached for potential participation in an hour-long semistructured interview. Patients enrolled in hospice or who were non-English speaking were excluded. Participants were enrolled until thematic saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed and coded using the five-stage thematic approach. Results: Ten women were consented and participated in semistructured interviews, which occurred a median of 4 (range 1-18) days after the index GOC discussion. The median age was 64 (range 37-78), and the most common diagnosis (50%) was recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Four themes were identified: (1) delivery of the GOC conversation, (2) importance of prioritizing individual values, (3) involving family in decision making, and (4) openness to discussing discontinuation of anticancer treatment and hospice. Patients generally felt these GOC conversations were useful, providing a space to express their values and did not compromise the patient-clinician relationship. Conclusions: Patients seemed willing to engage in GOC conversations and were appreciative of their clinicians' communication skills. Often, they used this conversation as an opportunity to convey personal values affecting their care.