RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Gender disparities exist in the OBGYN discipline. This study investigates, for the first time, whether gender impacts on the confidence of practical and surgical skills among OBGYN residents, and of being prepared to work as a specialist. METHODS: The gynecological societies of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland established a web-based survey of 30 questions that was sent to all registered OBGYN members-in-training from August to September 2020. Data collection, controlling and analysis were performed by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH). RESULTS: A total of 422 participants took part in the survey, of which 375 (88.9%) were female, 46 (10.9%) were male, and one (0.2%) was divers. The diverse participant was excluded from further analyses. The gender distribution was comparable in all three countries. Multiple regression analyses showed that gender is an independent variable significantly impacting on the confidence levels in performing standard gynaecological (p = 0.03) and obstetric (p < 0.001) procedures. Similarly, the feeling of confidence in being prepared for working as a specialist in a clinic showed to be gender-dependent (p < 0.001), however, not the feeling of being prepared for working as specialist in an outpatient setting (p = 0.37). The "female factor" significantly decreases the confidence rating for surgical and practical skills and for working in a hospital. Covariates including year of training, country, workload, receiving regular feedback, and implemented simulation training were included in all analyses. DISCUSSION: Improvements of residency programs to promote female doctors to overcome factors reducing their confidence in their own OBGYN skills are highly warranted.
RESUMO
Objective: In this study, we aim to assess the current situation of postgraduate medical education in obstetrics and gynaecology in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In addition, we aim to determine transferable advantages amongst the countries. Study design: We performed a survey through a digital questionnaire with a total of 40 questions. The survey was advertised via communication channels of the German, Austrian and Swiss gynaecological societies; the participants were enrolled anonymously. Results: A total of 422 trainees took part in the survey. Differences within the three countries where found regarding the workload and the training of sub-specialties. Generally, the participants described to spend the majority of their daily working hours on documentation. Concerning assessment of current training regulations, more than half of trainees stated that they were actually faced with notable difficulties to fulfil the required obligatory numbers of self-performed interventions being documented. When asked for their intrinsic feeling of safety, around two-third of trainees felt "confident to very confident" during standard interventions. These numbers were up to 12% higher in the group of trainees who experienced simulation training during their education. Conclusion: With the help of this survey, weak points can be identified such as workload and implementation of current training regulations. Projects and ideas as EBCOG PACT, EPAs, the reduction of bureaucracy through digitization and deepening skills through simulation make a valuable contribution to compensate for these deficits and to adapt to future requirements.
