ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient and provider experiences using telemedicine for gynecologic visits among a diverse, low-income population. METHODS: Patients attending telemedicine visits at a resident-run gynecology clinic completed a modified Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire and providers completed a survey addressing satisfaction and barriers for each visit. The Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire included six subscales to assess telemedicine usability with 1-5 Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and two-sample t-test. RESULTS: Of 192 patients enrolled, 157 (82%) completed the surveys (87% video visits, 13% telephone visits). Most patients were ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic White-16%, Hispanic-32%, Black-28%, Asian-10%), median age was 40 years (range 18-69), and 63% reported income under $40,000. The total mean Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire score was 4.3/5. The reliability subscale score (3.72/5) was lower compared to all other subscales (p < 0.001). Older respondents were more likely to find telemedicine unreliable (mean age >44 vs <39, p = 0.02). Without telemedicine, 54% would have traveled ≥1â h to appointments, with 46% spending over $35 on travel, and 27% missing ≥ 1 workday. Patients preferred telemedicine for follow-up rather than initial visits (81% vs 33%, p < 0.01). Among providers, residents felt less adequately trained in telemedicine compared to nurse practitioners and fellows (54% vs 46%, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Low-income women utilizing telemedicine for outpatient gynecologic care report positive experiences with improved access to healthcare, cost, and time savings compared to in-person visits. Provider experiences were also positive; however, teaching hospitals must evaluate whether trainee providers feel adequately trained to deliver telemedicine visits.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate representation trends of historically underrepresented minority (URM) groups in gynecologic oncology fellowships in the United States using a nationwide database collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). METHODS: Data on self-reported ethnicity/race of filled residency positions was collected from ACGME Database Books across three academic years from 2016 to 2019. Primary chi-square analysis compared URM representation in gynecologic oncology to obstetrics and gynecology, other surgical specialties, and other medical specialties. Secondary analysis examined representation of two URM subgroups: 1) Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2) Hispanic, Black, Native American, Other (HBNO), across specialty groups. RESULTS: A total of 528 gynecologic oncology positions, 12,559 obstetrics and gynecology positions, 52,733 other surgical positions, and 240,690 other medical positions from ACGME accredited medical specialties were included in analysis. Primary comparative analysis showed a statistically significant lower proportion (P < 0.05) of URM trainees in gynecologic oncology in comparison to each of obstetrics and gynecology, other surgical fields, and other medical fields. Secondary analysis also demonstrated a significantly lower proportion (P < 0.05) of HBNO physicians in gynecologic oncology in comparison to obstetrics and gynecology, as well as all other medical and surgical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the disparities in URM representation, especially those who identify as HBNO, in gynecologic oncology fellowship training in comparison to obstetrics and gynecology as well as other medical and surgical fields. Improvements to the current recruitment and selection practices in gynecologic oncology fellowships in the United States are necessary in order to ensure a diverse and representative workforce.
