Geographic Disparities in Potential Accessibility to Gynecologic Oncologists in the United States From 2001 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To use a spatial modeling approach to capture potential disparities of gynecologic oncologist accessibility in the United States at the county level between 2001 and 2020. METHODS: Physician registries identified the 2001-2020 gynecologic oncology workforce and were aggregated to each county. The at-risk cohort (women aged 18 years or older) was stratified by race and ethnicity and rurality demographics. We computed the distance from at-risk women to physicians. Relative access scores were computed by a spatial model for each contiguous county. Access scores were compared across urban or rural status and racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2020, the gynecologic oncologist workforce increased. By 2020, there were 1,178 active physicians and 98.3% practiced in urban areas (37.3% of all counties). Geographic disparities were identified, with 1.09 physicians per 100,000 women in urban areas compared with 0.1 physicians per 100,000 women in rural areas. In total, 2,862 counties (57.4 million at-risk women) lacked an active physician. Additionally, there was no increase in rural physicians, with only 1.7% practicing in rural areas in 2016-2020 relative to 2.2% in 2001-2005 ( P =.35). Women in racial and ethnic minority populations, such as American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic women, exhibited the lowest level of access to physicians across all time periods. For example, 23.7% of American Indian or Alaska Native women did not have access to a physician within 100 miles between 2016 and 2020, which did not improve over time. Non-Hispanic Black women experienced an increase in relative accessibility, with a 26.2% increase by 2016-2020. However, Asian or Pacific Islander women exhibited significantly better access than non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women across all time periods. CONCLUSION: Although the U.S. gynecologic oncologist workforce increased steadily over 20 years, this has not translated into evidence of improved access for many women from rural and underrepresented areas. However, health care utilization and cancer outcomes may not be influenced only by distance and availability. Policies and pipeline programs are needed to address these inequities in gynecologic cancer care.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Experiences in Electronic Consultation (eConsult) Service in Gynecology from a Quaternary Academic Medical Center.

To evaluate an academic institution's implementation of a gynecologic electronic consultation (eConsult) service, including the most common queries, turnaround time, need for conversion to in-person visits, and to demonstrate how eConsults can improve access and convenience for patients and providers. This is a descriptive and retrospective electronic chart review. We obtained data from the UCSF eConsult and Smart Referral program manager. The medical system provided institution-wide statistics. Three authors reviewed and categorized gynecologic eConsults for the last fiscal year. The senior author resolved conflicts in coding. The eConsult program manager provided billing information and provider reimbursement. A total of 548 eConsults were submitted to the gynecology service between July 2017 and June 2020 (4.5% of institutional eConsult volume). Ninety-five percent of the eConsults were completed by a senior specialist within our department. Abnormal pap smear management, abnormal uterine bleeding, and contraception questions were the most common queries. Over half (59.3%) of all inquiries were answered on the same day as they were received, with an average of 9% declined. Gynecology was the 10th largest eConsult provider at our institution in 2020. The present investigation describes one large university-based experience with eConsults in gynecology. Results demonstrate that eConsults permit appropriate, efficient triaging of time-sensitive conditions affecting patients especially in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. eConsult services provide the potential to improve access, interdisciplinary communication, and patient and provider satisfaction.

A mismatch in care: results of a United Kingdom-wide patient and clinician survey of gynaecological services for women with Lynch syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current testing practice, referral pathways and gynaecological services available to women with Lynch syndrome (LS) in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey of gynaecological oncologists and women with LS. SETTING: United Kingdom. METHODS: Gynaecological oncologists were contacted directly. Women with LS were identified from national and regional clinical databases and the patient support group, Lynch syndrome UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gynaecological oncologists were asked to report rates of LS testing and current practice regarding risk-reducing strategies and gynaecological surveillance for women with LS. Women with LS were asked to describe their experiences of gynaecological care. RESULTS: In total, 41 gynaecological oncologists and 298 women with LS responded to the survey. Of the gynaecological oncologists surveyed, 37% were unfamiliar with any clinical guidelines for the management of LS. Only 29% of gynaecological oncologists supported universal testing of endometrial cancer for LS; one centre routinely performed such testing. In all, 83% said they perform risk-reducing gynaecological surgery and 43% were aware of a local gynaecological surveillance service for women with LS. Of women with LS, most had undergone a hysterectomy (n = 191/64.1%), most frequently to reduce their gynaecological cancer risk (n = 86/45%). A total of 10% were initially referred for LS testing by their gynaecologist and 55% of those eligible regularly attended gynaecological surveillance; however, 62% wanted more regular surveillance. Regional variation was evident across all standards of care. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread variation in the services offered to women with LS in the UK. As a community, gynaecological oncologists should move towards a nationally agreed provision of services. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A mismatch in care for mismatch repair. Survey finds significant variation in gynaecological care for #Lynchsyndrome in the UK.

Access to Academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Providers for New Patient Visits: How Long Are Wait Times?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the wait times to see an academic Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) urologist or gynecologist and to identify factors that may impact these wait times. METHODS: We reviewed all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited urology and gynecology residency programs. Offices of FPMRS providers were called to ascertain the earliest available new patient visit for a fictional female patient with "urine leakage." Programs without FPMRS faculty (18.7%) were excluded. FPMRS providers that did not accept Medicaid (15.6%) were also excluded. Negative binomial regression was performed using SPSS v24. RESULTS: Final analysis included 362 FPMRS providers. Median wait time for a patient with Medicaid was 30 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15-51) and 26 days (IQR 14-42) for Medicare. The median wait time to see an FPMRS-trained gynecologist was 28 days (IQR 15-50) while FPMRS-trained urologists had a median wait time of 25 days (IQR 13.8-43.3). Female providers had longer median wait times when compared to male providers (30 vs 25 days). On regression analysis, only female gender of the provider was significant (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our study found that nearly 1 in 5 academic departments did not have an FPMRS-trained provider. We found that new patients with urinary incontinence encountered substantial wait times to see FPMRS providers at academic institutions. As we project increased demand for the FPMRS workforce, our findings reflect a challenging landscape where training additional FPMRS providers may be needed to meet demand.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care. METHODS: We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality. RESULTS: Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm. CONCLUSION: There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

An increase in multi-site practices: The shifting paradigm for gynecologic cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the number of practice sites per gynecologic oncologist (GO) and geographic access to GOs has changed over time. METHODS: This is a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study using the 2015-2019 Physician Compare National File. All GOs in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, who had completed at least one year of practice were included in the study. All practice sites with complete addresses were included. Linear regression analyses estimated trends in GOs' number of practice sites and geographic dispersion of practice sites. Secondary analyses assessed temporal trends in the number of geographic areas served by at least one GO. RESULTS: Although there was no significant change in the number of GOs from 2015 to 2019 (n = 1328), there was a significant increase in the number of practice sites (881 to 1416, p = 0.03), zip codes (642 to 984, p = 0.03), HSAs (404 to 536, p = 0.04), and HRRs (218 to 230, p = 0.03) containing a GO practice. The mean number of practice sites (1.64 versus 2.13, p < 0.001) and dispersion of practice sites (0.03 versus 0.43 miles, p = 0.049) per GO increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, an increasing number of GOs have multi-site practices, and more geographic regions contain a GO practice. Improvements in geographic access to GOs may represent improved access to care for many women in the US, but its effect on patients, physicians, and geographic disparities is unknown.

Determinants of rural-urban differences in health care provider visits among women of reproductive age in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Rural health disparities and access gaps may contribute to higher maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. Understanding and addressing access barriers for specialty women's health services is important in mitigating risks for adverse childbirth events. The objective of this study was to investigate rural-urban differences in health care access for women of reproductive age by examining differences in past-year provider visit rates by provider type, and quantifying the contributing factors to these findings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a nationally-representative sample of reproductive age women (n = 37,026) from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2010-2015) linked to the Area Health Resource File, rural-urban differences in past-year office visit rates with health care providers were examined. Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis quantified the portion of disparities explained by individual- and county-level sociodemographic and provider supply characteristics. Overall, there were no rural-urban differences in past-year visits with women's health providers collectively (65.0% vs 62.4%), however differences were observed by provider type. Rural women had lower past-year obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) visit rates than urban women (23.3% vs. 26.6%), and higher visit rates with family medicine physicians (24.3% vs. 20.9%) and nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) (24.6% vs. 16.1%). Lower OB-GYN availability in rural versus urban counties (6.1 vs. 13.7 providers/100,000 population) explained most of the rural disadvantage in OB-GYN visit rates (83.8%), and much of the higher family physician (80.9%) and NP/PA (50.1%) visit rates. Other individual- and county-level characteristics had smaller effects on rural-urban differences. CONCLUSION: Although there were no overall rural-urban differences in past-year visit rates, the lower OB-GYN availability in rural areas appears to affect the types of health care providers seen by women. Whether rural women are receiving adequate specialized women's health care services, while seeing a different cadre of providers, warrants further investigation and has particular relevance for women experiencing high-risk pregnancies and deliveries.

[The French "pill scare": Did women go to a gynecologist more often to have an easier access to the IUD?] / La « crise des pilules ¼ en France : les femmes ont-elles davantage consulté un.e gynécologue afin d'accéder plus facilement au DIU ?

BACKGROUND: In December 2012, a media controversy about negative side-effects of oral contraceptives on women's health, also called "pill scare", broke out in France. While several analyses highlighted a change in women's contraceptive practices following this media controversy, no analysis has been conducted to determine the possible changes in their choices of health professionals and its repercussions on their contraceptive use. METHODS: Our study is based on data from three population-based cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2016 (Fecond 2010, Fecond 2013 and Baromètre Santé 2016) that collected information on women's contraceptive practices and the specialties of the health professionals having prescribed the methods they were using. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2016, women went to a gynecologist or a midwife more often than to a general practitioner for prescription of a reversible contraceptive method. However, their changes in visiting prescribers did not explain the changes in their contraceptive practices observed over the period. In 2016, access to health professional remained largely dependent on women's socio-demographic characteristics: older ones and those from a more privileged social background or living in urban areas were more likely to consult a gynecologist for prescription of their contraceptive method. On the other hand, consultations of midwives for contraceptive prescription were more frequent among women with children and among those who relied on public health insurance alone. CONCLUSION: Following the "pill scare" that occurred in France in December 2012, the decision by some women to use the IUD instead of the pill led them to change health professionals, and also led practitioners to change their prescribing practices.

Clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting.

Transgender men remain at risk for gynecologic malignancies, but are an underserved population. Members of the transgender community experience discrimination and have experiences that contribute to health disparities, including in gynecology and oncology. While efforts have been made within the United States to reduce inequalities experienced by members of this community, many needs in the clinical setting remain. Increased education and training among providers and healthcare professionals, and general improvements towards understanding barriers to health screening and health resource uptake may reduce some disparities. Additional research towards screening and cancer surveillance among this community will be necessary to understand any potential additional risks and survival disparities experienced by transgender men. This review focuses on barriers and clinical needs for transgender men in the gynecologic oncology setting, and suggestions for moving forward to improve care for this patient population.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Salary Disparities in Academic Urogynecology: Despite Increased Transparency, Men Still Earn More Than Women.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the compensation differences between male and female academic urogynecologists at public institutions. METHODS: Urogynecologists at public universities with publicly available salary data as of June 2019 were eligible for the study. We collected characteristics, including sex, additional advanced degrees, years of training, board certification, leadership roles, number of authored scientific publications, and total National Institutes of Health funding projects and number of registered clinical trials for which the physician was a principal or co-investigator. We also collected total number of Medicare beneficiaries treated and total Medicare reimbursement as reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used linear regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 85 academic urogynecologists at 29 public state academic institutions with available salary data eligible for inclusion in the study. Males were more likely to be an associate or a full professor (81%) compared with females (55%) and were more likely to serve as department chair, vice chair, or division director (59%) compared with females (30%). The mean annual salary was significantly higher among males ($323,227 ± $97,338) than females ($268,990 ± $72,311, P = 0.004). After adjusting for academic rank and leadership roles and years since residency, the discrepancy persisted, with females compensated on average $37,955 less annually. CONCLUSIONS: Salaries are higher for male urogynecologists than female urogynecologists, even when accounting for variables such as academic rank and leadership roles. Physician compensation is complex; the differences observed may be due to variables that are not captured in this study. Nevertheless, the magnitude of disparity found in our study warrants further critical assessment of potential biases within the field.

Contemporary Patterns of Third-line Treatments for Privately Insured Individuals With Overactive Bladder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization of third-line overactive bladder (OAB) treatments including percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), and intradetrusor botulinum toxin A (BTX) among privately insured patients and examine factors associated with their use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using MarketScan claims (2015-2017), we identified patients who underwent third-line OAB treatments based on procedure codes. Factors of interest included location, age, health plan, among others. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to estimate associations between pertinent factors with receipt of PTNS and SNS relative to BTX and associations between provider type and practice location with each treatment modality. RESULTS: We identified 7383 patients (mean age 50.9) in our cohort. SNS was used most frequently (n = 3602, 48.8%), while PTNS was used least frequently (n = 955, 12.9%). PTNS patients were more likely to reside in metropolitan areas (vs BTX: OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-2.1; vs SNS: OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.8), be aged 55 years or older (vs BTX: 54% vs 47%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.1; vs SNS: 54% vs 45%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.0), and be covered under a health maintenance organization (vs BTX: 17% vs 10%; vs SNS: 17% vs 10%, P <.01). Urologists were most likely to perform SNS, and gynecologists were most likely to perform BTX. 91% of PTNS procedures were performed in office settings. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving third-line OAB treatment, PTNS was used infrequently. PTNS utilization was concentrated within urban areas, and among older patients and those covered by cost-conscious health maintenance organizations.

Evaluation of surgical resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: laparoscopic assessment. A European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group survey.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopy is one of the diagnostic tools available for the complex clinical decision-making process in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. This article presents the results of a survey conducted within the European Network of Gynaecological Oncology Trial (ENGOT) group aimed at reviewing the current patterns of practice at gynecologic oncology centers with regard to the evaluation of resection in advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma. METHODS: A 24-item questionnaire was sent to the chair of the 20 cooperative groups that are currently part of the ENGOT group, and forwarded to the members within each group. RESULTS: A total of 142 questionnaires were returned. Only 39 respondents (27.5%) reported using some form of clinical (not operative) score for the evaluation of resection. The frequency of use of diagnostic laparoscopy to assess disease status and feasibility of resection was as follows: never, 21 centers (15%); only in select cases, 83 centers (58.5%); and routinely, 36 centers (25.4%). When laparoscopy was performed, 64% of users declared they made the decision to proceed with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery based on their personal/staff opinion, and 36% based on a laparoscopic score. To the question of whether laparoscopy should be considered the gold standard in the evaluation of resection, 71 respondents (50%) answered no, 66 respondents (46.5%) answered yes, whereas 5 respondents (3.5%) did not provide an answer. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that laparoscopy was routinely performed to assess feasibility of cytoreduction in only 25.4% of centers in Europe. However, it was commonly used to select patients and in a minority of centers it was never used . When laparoscopy was adopted, the treatment strategy was based on laparoscopic scores only in a minority of centers.

Examining Inequities Associated With Changes in Obstetric and Gynecologic Care Delivery During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency requiring significant changes in obstetric and gynecologic health care delivery to minimize the risk of transmission to healthy patients and health care workers. Although these changes are necessary, they will differentially affect patients in a way that highlights and exacerbates existing inequities in health care access and outcomes. Socially vulnerable groups are already disproportionately affected by COVID-19 infection and more likely to experience severe morbidity and mortality. Some reasons for this include a limited ability to practice risk-reducing behaviors such as physical distancing, higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, and less access to medical care. Additionally, the structural changes now taking place in health care delivery have negatively affected the ability of socially vulnerable groups to obtain necessary obstetric and gynecologic care, which may lead to poorer outcomes. As physician-leaders enact new policies to respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, it is important to consider the potential for exacerbating existing health inequities and to be proactive in creating policies that promote equity.

Female patient preferences regarding physician gender: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: The number of male medical students selecting Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) has declined in recent years. However, it is unclear whether patients prioritize a female provider. The aim of the study was to assess gender preferences amongst female patients regarding their OBGYN and other medical providers. A secondary aim was to evaluate qualities that are important to female patients regarding their OBGYN. METHODS: This was a USA cross-sectional survey using an internet-based provider (SurveyMonkey®) in January 2019. A 19-item questionnaire was distributed to females aged 18-80. The survey queried demographics, gender preferences for medical providers and important qualities in selecting their OBGYN. A goal of 1000 responses was determined for the study. RESULTS: One thousand and fifteen women completed the entire survey. Sixty-six percent of respondents (N.=667) preferred a female OBGYN, while 8% (N.=87) preferred male, 25% (N.=261) no preference. The majority (51%) voiced no gender preference regarding other providers (N.=521). When asked to rank the 3 most important qualities in selecting their OBGYN, experience (57%), knowledge (51%), reputation (35%) and personality (34%) were most frequently chosen amongst the top 3. Gender was listed among the 3 important qualities by only 8% (N.=88). Women who identified as single, <45 years of age, and nulliparous had a higher likelihood of preferring a female OBGYN (P<0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of women reported a female preference when selecting an OBGYN. However, when compared to other qualities, it is deemed less important. Male medical students considering OBGYN should be reassured by this information.

The role of acculturation in migrants' use of gynecologic emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether acculturation of migrant patients is a predictor of non-urgent use of gynecologic emergency departments (GEDs). METHODS: A cross-sectional study based on standardized questionnaire interviews among migrant (n=477) and non-migrant (n=246) women attending a GED in Berlin, Germany, between 2017 and 2018. Non-urgent GED use was defined by health system (e.g., no hospital admission) or patient (e.g., low subjective urgency) criteria. Acculturation was assessed by the Frankfurt Acculturation Scale. Logistic regressions were calculated with non-migrants as the reference. RESULTS: Relative to migrants, low acculturation of migrants had no significant effect on overall non-urgent GED use. However, low acculturation was a significant predictor of non-urgent use if defined only by health system criteria (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.44; P=0.041). Inversely, low acculturation had a significant negative effect on non-urgent use if defined only by patient criteria (AOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90; P=0.014). CONCLUSION: Low-acculturated migrants were more prone to non-urgent GED use as defined by health system criteria, and might have a distorted perception of urgency. According to their perception, however, low-acculturated patients showed appropriate GED use for urgent complaints, indicating that they are insufficiently cared for by the healthcare system.

How Doctors' Beliefs Influence Gynecological Health Care for Women Who Have Sex with Other Women.

Background: Women who occasionally or regularly have sex with other women (WSW) are rarely identified in primary care. Although we know about their specific health needs, health care professionals still find it difficult to ask questions about sexual orientation (SO) and behaviors, and sometimes, patients may find them difficult to answer. The presumption of heterosexuality still remains a widespread attitude in health care. This study took place in a primary care setting, and aimed to identify differences in gynecological health care and clinical practice for women, according to what their presumed SO and behaviors were. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational, descriptive, and comparative study from October 2018 to February 2019. Three hundred thirty-eight general practitioners (GPs) from Rhône-Alpes area (France) received an anonymous questionnaire with clinical case vignettes. The main outcome was the percentage of GPs who perform a different gynecological follow-up for WSW and non-WSW. Results: In total, 165 questionnaires were analyzed. Ninety percent of respondents performed a different gynecological follow-up for WSW, compared with other women. They less often addressed topics such as contraception needs, use of barrier protections, and screening of sexually transmitted infections. Ninety-two percent of respondents were aware that they have WSW among their patients, but 2/3 of them never or rarely asked about SO. Conclusion: Most GPs know that they manage WSW but may misidentify these patients and their real care needs. Therefore, WSW receive a different and poorer follow-up than non-WSW. Clinical guidelines would be useful to improve and standardize quality and experience of health care for WSW.