GENDER PREFERENCES OF YOUTH ATHLETES FOR THEIR SPORTS MEDICINE PROVIDERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach is an intrinsic part of the sports medicine management process as providers, therapists and athletic trainers frequently interact to deliver optimal care to athletes both in clinic and on the sideline. Establishing effective communication and engaging athletes in the decision making process as treatment plans are developed may help increase compliance and improve health outcomes. Gender preference of patients for their providers has been found to influence patient satisfaction and health outcomes but has not been studied in depth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify and characterize young athletes’ gender preferences for their sports medicine providers. METHODS: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Group (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched utilizing MeSH terms, with results limited to English-language publications from the year 1945 to present day. The investigators assessed study eligibility independently and limited to studies that had quantitative outcome measures related to gender preference and participants ≤ 22 years of age. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was utilized to assess studies for bias. RESULTS: Six cross-sectional studies met the eligibility criteria. Across studies, there were a total of 2,159 participants with mean ages ranging from 14.7 to 21.0 years. Of the five studies that reported the gender of participants, 50.6% were female. Participants were more likely to have a preference for a gender-concordant sports medicine provider when their chief complaint was related to their genital region and/or their sexual health. Participants of both genders favored a female provider when the health issue pertained to behavioral and/or psychosocial health, such as depression. Female athletes preferred a female provider when the issue was related to body image and/or disordered eating. For strength and conditioning coaches, male athletes reported a strong preference for male providers, but female athletes did not express a gender preference. Two of the studies’ quality was categorized as “good” by the AXIS criteria and four were “fair”. CONCLUSIONS: Young athletes’ gender preference for their sports medicine providers is situation-dependent. However, there is a paucity of studies examining gender provider preferences in pediatric athletes. Further studies are necessary to address this void in the literature as this may impact health outcomes.