The Role of Surgeon Gender in Patient Surgeon-Selection in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Crowdsourcing Analysis

Helen Xun, M. J. Escobar-Domingo, J. Foppiani, James E. Fanning, A. H. Alvarez, Ashley Boustany, Bernard T. Lee
{"title":"The Role of Surgeon Gender in Patient Surgeon-Selection in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Crowdsourcing Analysis","authors":"Helen Xun, M. J. Escobar-Domingo, J. Foppiani, James E. Fanning, A. H. Alvarez, Ashley Boustany, Bernard T. Lee","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae007.092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Goals/Purpose Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), and especially aesthetic surgery, is uniquely characterized by an increased ability to research and select their surgeon. As the increasing number of female plastic surgeons begin to establish themselves in practice, it remains understudied if gender or implicit gender biases is a variable in patient surgeon-selection. Wallis, et al.’s landmark paper in 2023 suggested that female surgeons exhibited a lower risk-adjusted likelihood of adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality, hospital readmission, and major medical complications, although the precise mechanisms remain unclear. Currently, it is unknown if the public is aware of these findings, and if it these findings would impact patient-surgeon selection. Patient-surgeon selection may be an opportunity where PRS may lead surgical subspecialties in addressing implicit surgeon gender biases due to the predominance of female patients, and improved gender representation in surgical training programs compared to other surgical subspecialties. The purpose of this study is to explore public preferences and perspectives on the role of surgeon gender in patient surgeon-selection in PRS, and if knowledge of gender-correlated surgical outcomes impact surgeon selection. A secondary aim is to examine if these public preferences differ between reconstructive versus aesthetic surgery. Methods/Technique A cross-sectional survey was distributed through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Subjects were at least 18 years old and residents of the United States. Participants were briefed about hypothetical scenarios involving aesthetic and reconstructive surgical procedures, and then asked to choose either a male and female surgeon. They were then presented with an excerpt of Wallis, et al. (2023) findings, and reassessed for surgeon gender preference. The participant cohort was stratified by gender, classifying them as female and male responders. Differences between groups were evaluated using the unpaired t-test and Fisher exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess associations between plastic surgeon gender preference and sociodemographic characteristics. Stata statistical software (STATA Corp., BE, 18.0) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. Results/Complications A total of 547 participants were included. Of those, 310 (56.7%) were male and 237 (43.3%) were female. The mean age was 33.8 (SD 6.8) for the male group and 35.1 (SD 7.2) for the female group. Both groups had similar percentages of level of education (p=0.071). Significant differences were observed in race (p=0.004), ethnicity (p<0.001), U.S. region of residency (p<0.001), and religion (p<0.001) (Table 1). Both groups had similar percentages of previous PRS background/interest (M: 81.3%, F: 86.1%, p=0.164). However, female participants had higher percentages of aesthetic background/interest (86.1%) compared to the male counterparts (78.7%, p=0.033). Similar interest/background in reconstructive procedures was found between groups (M: 60.0%, F: 45.6%, p=0.222) (Table 2). Statistically significant differences emerged in overall preferences for physician's gender (p<0.001), as well as preferences for the gender of plastic surgeons conducting aesthetic non-surgical (p<0.001), aesthetic surgical (p<0.001), and reconstructive surgical procedures (p<0.001), particularly favoring the same-gender preference. A higher percentage of male participants believed that the plastic surgeon's gender impacts surgical outcomes (77.4% vs. 62.0%, p<0.001), associating better outcomes with male surgeons (91.2%). The majority of female responders favored female surgeons for better outcomes (63.9%, p<0.001). Following exposure to an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) published article, preferences for female plastic surgeons increased among both groups, with statistically higher rates in the male group (79.4% vs. 69.6%; p=0.010) (Table 3). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that for aesthetic surgical procedures, female gender [10.65 OR; 95% CI (5.65–1.29); p<0.001], living in the Southwest region [1.88 OR; 95% CI (1.11–12.62); p=0.033], were factors independently linked to a higher preference for female plastic surgeons. Conversely, age [0.97 OR; 95% CI (0.94–0.99); p=0.025], and having a background/interest in reconstructive procedures [0.57 OR; 95% CI (0.35–0.93); p=0.027] were associated with a lower preference for female plastic surgeons in this category (Table 5). Following presentation of an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) article, Hispanic ethnicity [2.67 OR; 95% CI (1.31–5.48); p=0.007], residing in the Southeast region [3.12 OR; 95% CI (1.43–6.81); p=0.004], having a background/interest in aesthetic [2.05 OR; 95 %CI (1.16–3.63); p=0.014], and reconstructive procedures [3.86 OR; 95% CI (2.29–6.51); p<0.001] were associated with a higher likelihood of shifting preference towards female plastic surgeons (Table 7). Conclusion Participants demonstrated a predominant preference for surgeons of the same gender across aesthetic non-surgical, aesthetic surgical, and reconstructive procedures. Initially, gender biases affected perceptions of surgeon gender and surgical outcomes, particularly notable among male participants. However, this preference notably changed following exposure to a segment of published literature on surgeon outcomes based on gender. These findings support the importance of gender diversity in plastic surgery due to patient preference, and suggests that implicit gender biases in patient surgeon-selection persist, but can potentially be addressed with patient education. Rigorous future studies are required to expand hypothesizes generated from this proof-of-concept study, and should emphasize including non-binary populations.","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"57 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae007.092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Goals/Purpose Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), and especially aesthetic surgery, is uniquely characterized by an increased ability to research and select their surgeon. As the increasing number of female plastic surgeons begin to establish themselves in practice, it remains understudied if gender or implicit gender biases is a variable in patient surgeon-selection. Wallis, et al.’s landmark paper in 2023 suggested that female surgeons exhibited a lower risk-adjusted likelihood of adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality, hospital readmission, and major medical complications, although the precise mechanisms remain unclear. Currently, it is unknown if the public is aware of these findings, and if it these findings would impact patient-surgeon selection. Patient-surgeon selection may be an opportunity where PRS may lead surgical subspecialties in addressing implicit surgeon gender biases due to the predominance of female patients, and improved gender representation in surgical training programs compared to other surgical subspecialties. The purpose of this study is to explore public preferences and perspectives on the role of surgeon gender in patient surgeon-selection in PRS, and if knowledge of gender-correlated surgical outcomes impact surgeon selection. A secondary aim is to examine if these public preferences differ between reconstructive versus aesthetic surgery. Methods/Technique A cross-sectional survey was distributed through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Subjects were at least 18 years old and residents of the United States. Participants were briefed about hypothetical scenarios involving aesthetic and reconstructive surgical procedures, and then asked to choose either a male and female surgeon. They were then presented with an excerpt of Wallis, et al. (2023) findings, and reassessed for surgeon gender preference. The participant cohort was stratified by gender, classifying them as female and male responders. Differences between groups were evaluated using the unpaired t-test and Fisher exact tests. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess associations between plastic surgeon gender preference and sociodemographic characteristics. Stata statistical software (STATA Corp., BE, 18.0) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. Results/Complications A total of 547 participants were included. Of those, 310 (56.7%) were male and 237 (43.3%) were female. The mean age was 33.8 (SD 6.8) for the male group and 35.1 (SD 7.2) for the female group. Both groups had similar percentages of level of education (p=0.071). Significant differences were observed in race (p=0.004), ethnicity (p<0.001), U.S. region of residency (p<0.001), and religion (p<0.001) (Table 1). Both groups had similar percentages of previous PRS background/interest (M: 81.3%, F: 86.1%, p=0.164). However, female participants had higher percentages of aesthetic background/interest (86.1%) compared to the male counterparts (78.7%, p=0.033). Similar interest/background in reconstructive procedures was found between groups (M: 60.0%, F: 45.6%, p=0.222) (Table 2). Statistically significant differences emerged in overall preferences for physician's gender (p<0.001), as well as preferences for the gender of plastic surgeons conducting aesthetic non-surgical (p<0.001), aesthetic surgical (p<0.001), and reconstructive surgical procedures (p<0.001), particularly favoring the same-gender preference. A higher percentage of male participants believed that the plastic surgeon's gender impacts surgical outcomes (77.4% vs. 62.0%, p<0.001), associating better outcomes with male surgeons (91.2%). The majority of female responders favored female surgeons for better outcomes (63.9%, p<0.001). Following exposure to an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) published article, preferences for female plastic surgeons increased among both groups, with statistically higher rates in the male group (79.4% vs. 69.6%; p=0.010) (Table 3). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that for aesthetic surgical procedures, female gender [10.65 OR; 95% CI (5.65–1.29); p<0.001], living in the Southwest region [1.88 OR; 95% CI (1.11–12.62); p=0.033], were factors independently linked to a higher preference for female plastic surgeons. Conversely, age [0.97 OR; 95% CI (0.94–0.99); p=0.025], and having a background/interest in reconstructive procedures [0.57 OR; 95% CI (0.35–0.93); p=0.027] were associated with a lower preference for female plastic surgeons in this category (Table 5). Following presentation of an excerpt from the Wallis, et al. (2023) article, Hispanic ethnicity [2.67 OR; 95% CI (1.31–5.48); p=0.007], residing in the Southeast region [3.12 OR; 95% CI (1.43–6.81); p=0.004], having a background/interest in aesthetic [2.05 OR; 95 %CI (1.16–3.63); p=0.014], and reconstructive procedures [3.86 OR; 95% CI (2.29–6.51); p<0.001] were associated with a higher likelihood of shifting preference towards female plastic surgeons (Table 7). Conclusion Participants demonstrated a predominant preference for surgeons of the same gender across aesthetic non-surgical, aesthetic surgical, and reconstructive procedures. Initially, gender biases affected perceptions of surgeon gender and surgical outcomes, particularly notable among male participants. However, this preference notably changed following exposure to a segment of published literature on surgeon outcomes based on gender. These findings support the importance of gender diversity in plastic surgery due to patient preference, and suggests that implicit gender biases in patient surgeon-selection persist, but can potentially be addressed with patient education. Rigorous future studies are required to expand hypothesizes generated from this proof-of-concept study, and should emphasize including non-binary populations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外科医生性别在整形外科患者外科医生选择中的作用:众包分析
001]与更倾向于女性整形外科医生有关(表 7)。结论 在非手术美容、外科美容和整形手术中,受试者主要偏好同性别的外科医生。最初,性别偏见影响了对外科医生性别和手术结果的看法,这在男性参与者中尤为明显。然而,在阅读了部分已发表的关于外科医生性别结果的文献后,这种偏好发生了显著变化。这些研究结果表明,由于患者的偏好,整形外科的性别多样性非常重要,并表明患者在选择外科医生时的隐性性别偏见依然存在,但有可能通过患者教育来解决。今后还需要进行严格的研究,以扩展这项概念验证研究提出的假设,并应强调将非二元人群包括在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Commentary on: The Role of Nasal Fat Preservation in Upper Lid Surgery and Assessment With the FACE-Q Questionnaire: Innovations in Upper Blepharoplasty. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty. Commentary on: The Gargano Yin Yang Breast Reduction Technique: How to Obtain Better Breast Shape, Volume Distribution, and Size With Long-Lasting Results. Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years. Might Topical Heparin Help With Occlusion Emergencies After Accidental Intra-Arterial Hyaluronic Acid Injections?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1