Cargando…

Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of patient preference for male or female urologic provider and explore which patient characteristics influence this preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining hospital Institutional Review Board approval, a 14‐question survey in English and Spanish was ad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Razdan, Shirin, Ho, Patrick, Bieber, Christine, Sljivich, Michaela, Anastos, Harry, Busby, Dallin, Simma‐Chiang, Vannita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.196
_version_ 1784889270737043456
author Razdan, Shirin
Ho, Patrick
Bieber, Christine
Sljivich, Michaela
Anastos, Harry
Busby, Dallin
Simma‐Chiang, Vannita
author_facet Razdan, Shirin
Ho, Patrick
Bieber, Christine
Sljivich, Michaela
Anastos, Harry
Busby, Dallin
Simma‐Chiang, Vannita
author_sort Razdan, Shirin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of patient preference for male or female urologic provider and explore which patient characteristics influence this preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining hospital Institutional Review Board approval, a 14‐question survey in English and Spanish was administered across four general urology clinic sites in a single hospital system in New York City. The survey asked demographic questions and preference for a male or a female urologist. The survey included questions pertaining to the nature of the clinic visit and subsequent provider preference as well. Statistics were performed using Stata 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 540 patients completed the 14‐question survey. The vast majority of survey respondents identified as male (90%). The largest proportion demographic groups were those aged 41–60 (47%), Hispanic or Latino (43%), Catholic (47%), unemployed (40%) and those with a high school level of education (34%). Most patients (60%) did not have a preference for a specific gender provider, whereas 37% preferred a male provider, and 3% preferred a female provider. On univariate analysis, patient age 25–40, less than high school education level and lack of employment were significant predictors of provider gender preference (p < 0.05), with most patients indicating a male provider preference. On multivariate analysis of gender, age, education level and employment status, gender and education level were not significant predictors of preference, whereas age 25–40 and being unemployed were significant predictors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patient gender, race and religion do not appear to influence their preference to be seen by a male or a female urologist in the clinic setting. However, patient age, unemployment and potentially educational attainment were significantly associated with a provider gender preference.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9931541
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99315412023-02-17 Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City Razdan, Shirin Ho, Patrick Bieber, Christine Sljivich, Michaela Anastos, Harry Busby, Dallin Simma‐Chiang, Vannita BJUI Compass Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of patient preference for male or female urologic provider and explore which patient characteristics influence this preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining hospital Institutional Review Board approval, a 14‐question survey in English and Spanish was administered across four general urology clinic sites in a single hospital system in New York City. The survey asked demographic questions and preference for a male or a female urologist. The survey included questions pertaining to the nature of the clinic visit and subsequent provider preference as well. Statistics were performed using Stata 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 540 patients completed the 14‐question survey. The vast majority of survey respondents identified as male (90%). The largest proportion demographic groups were those aged 41–60 (47%), Hispanic or Latino (43%), Catholic (47%), unemployed (40%) and those with a high school level of education (34%). Most patients (60%) did not have a preference for a specific gender provider, whereas 37% preferred a male provider, and 3% preferred a female provider. On univariate analysis, patient age 25–40, less than high school education level and lack of employment were significant predictors of provider gender preference (p < 0.05), with most patients indicating a male provider preference. On multivariate analysis of gender, age, education level and employment status, gender and education level were not significant predictors of preference, whereas age 25–40 and being unemployed were significant predictors (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patient gender, race and religion do not appear to influence their preference to be seen by a male or a female urologist in the clinic setting. However, patient age, unemployment and potentially educational attainment were significantly associated with a provider gender preference. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9931541/ /pubmed/36816153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.196 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Razdan, Shirin
Ho, Patrick
Bieber, Christine
Sljivich, Michaela
Anastos, Harry
Busby, Dallin
Simma‐Chiang, Vannita
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title_full Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title_fullStr Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title_full_unstemmed Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title_short Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
title_sort factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in new york city
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36816153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.196
work_keys_str_mv AT razdanshirin factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT hopatrick factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT bieberchristine factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT sljivichmichaela factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT anastosharry factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT busbydallin factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity
AT simmachiangvannita factorsthatinfluencepreferenceformaleorfemaleurologistamongunderservedpatientsinnewyorkcity