The role of gender in patient preference for breast surgical care - a comment on equality

Tulin D Cil, Alexandra M Easson, Tulin D Cil, Alexandra M Easson

Abstract

Gender preference among patients seeking medical care is an issue that is not well understood. It warrants exploration, particularly for patients undergoing sensitive physical exams. In a recent IJHPR article, Groutz et al. reported a survey study that explored patient preferences in selecting a breast surgeon. They found that a third of patients preferred a female surgeon for their breast examination. However, surgical ability was the primary factor in selecting a surgeon for their breast surgery. This commentary discusses these findings in the context of patient-centered care and issues of gender equality in medical education.Gender equality is considered an important societal movement in achieving human rights for everyone based on their ability, rather than their gender and opportunity. This commentary argues that the goal of gender equality is why women should be encouraged to enter surgical professions, recognizing that patient preferences will be shaped by societal norms. Gender preferences for the performance of sensitive physical examinations by some patients are likely multifactorial and they warrant more exploration to deliver ideal patient centered care.

Keywords: Breast surgery; Gender bias; Patient centered care; Patient preference; Women in surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Dr. Cil graduated from the University of Western Ontario Medical School and finished general surgery training at the University of Toronto in 2005. She received a master’s degree in education in medical education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (at U of T) in 2008. She also completed a clinical fellowship in breast surgical oncology at U of T. Dr. Cil’s research in surgical education focuses on innovative teaching strategies and mechanisms of learning surgical skills.

Dr. Easson is a general surgical oncologist specializing in breast, melanoma and gastrointestinal malignancy. Her interests include surgical education around professionalism, humanism, and palliative care.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. The United Nations website. . Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
    1. Webster F, Rice K, Christian J, Seemann N, Baxter N, Moulton C-A, Cil T. The erasure of gender in academic surgery: a qualitative study. Am J Surg. 2016;212:559–565. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.06.006.
    1. Groutz A, Amir H, Caspi R, Sharon E, Levy YA, Shimonov M. Do women prefer a female breast surgeon? Isr J Health Policy Res. 2016;5:35. doi: 10.1186/s13584-016-0094-3.
    1. Amir H, Beri A, Yechiely R, Amir Levy Y, Shimonov M, Groutz A. Do urology male patients prefer same-gender urologist? Am J Mens Health. 2016. 10.1177/1557988316650886.
    1. Plunkett BA, Kohli P, Milad MP. The importance of physician gender in the selection of an obstetrician or a gynecologist. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:926–928. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123401.
    1. Huis In’t Veld EA, Canales FL, Furnas HJ. The impact of a plastic Surgeon's gender on patient choice. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:466–471.
    1. Katz JN. Patient preferences and health disparities. JAMA. 2001;286:1506–1509. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.12.1506.
    1. Kerssens J, Bensing J, Andela M. Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1531–1540. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00272-9.
    1. Bertakis KD. The influence of gender on the doctor-patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76:356–360. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.022.
    1. Dusch MN, O'Sullivan PS, Ascher NL. Patient perceptions of female surgeons: how surgeon demeanor and type of surgery affect patient preference. J Surg Res. 2014;187:59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.020.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren