What Are the Challenges Related to Family Planning, Pregnancy, and Parenthood Faced by Women in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery is the surgical specialty with the lowest proportion of women. Conflicting evidence regarding the potential challenges of pregnancy and parenthood in orthopaedics, such as the implications of delayed childbearing, may be a barrier to recruitment and retainment of women in orthopaedic surgery. A summary of studies is needed to ensure that women who have or wish to have children during their career in orthopaedic surgery are equipped with the relevant information to make informed decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: What are the key gender-related barriers pertaining to (1) family planning, (2) pregnancy, and (3) parenthood that women in orthopaedic surgery face? METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO were searched on June 7, 2021, for studies related to pregnancy or parenthood as a woman in orthopaedic surgery. Inclusion criteria were studies in the English language and studies describing the perceptions or experiences of attending surgeons, trainees, or program directors. Studies that sampled surgical populations without specific reference to orthopaedics were excluded. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to identify important themes. Seventeen articles including surveys (13 studies), selective reviews (three studies), and an environmental scan (one study) met the inclusion criteria. The population sampled included 1691 attending surgeons, 864 trainees, and 391 program directors in the United States and United Kingdom. The Risk of Bias Instrument for Cross-Sectional Surveys of Attitudes and Practices tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in survey studies. A total of 2502 women and 560 men were sampled in 13 surveys addressing various topics related to pregnancy, parenthood, and family planning during an orthopaedic career. Three selective reviews provided information on occupational hazards in the orthopaedic work environment during pregnancy, while one environmental scan outlined the accessibility of parental leave policies at 160 residency programs. Many of the survey studies did not report formal clarity, validity, or reliability assessments, therefore increasing their risk of bias. However, our analysis of the provided instruments as well as the consistency of identified themes across multiple survey studies suggests the evidence we aggregated was sufficiently robust to answer the research questions posed in the current systematic review. RESULTS: These data revealed that many women have witnessed or experienced discrimination related to pregnancy and parenthood, at times resulting in a decision to delay family planning. In one study, childbearing was reportedly delayed by 67% of respondents (304 of 452) because of their career choice in orthopaedics. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to experience pregnancy complications (range 24% to 31%) than the national mean in the United States (range 13% to 17%). Lastly, despite these challenging conditions, there was often limited support for women who had or wished to start a family during their orthopaedic surgery career. Maternity and parental leave policies varied across training institutions, and only 55% (56 of 102) of training programs in the United States offered parental leave beyond standard vacation time. CONCLUSION: The potential negative effects of these challenges on the orthopaedic gender gap can be mitigated by increasing the availability and accessibility of information related to family planning, parental leave, and return to clinical duties while working as a woman in orthopaedic surgery. Future research could seek to provide a more global perspective and specifically explore regional variation in the environment faced by pregnancy or parenting women in orthopaedic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,084 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».