A12 EXAMINING THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIAN OR PATIENT GENDER WITH REFERRAL PATTERNS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY FOR NON-SCREENING INDICATIONS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Gender biases in referral may impact patient care, and may perpetuate gender-based pay inequities. Referral patterns of male and female patients to male and female gastroenterologists (GIs) have not been previously characterized. Purpose We aimed to determine the extent to which female patients referred for consultation to gastroenterologists were preferentially channeled to female practitioners, and to further assess how gender-based referral channeling has changed over time. Method We used data from IC/ES Ontario to identify all residents of Ontario, Canada who had had a new consultation with an Ontario gastroenterologist in an ambulatory setting between Jan 1, 2002, to Dec 31, 2019, with time subdivided into early (2002-2007), mid (2008-2013), and late (2014-2019) periods. New consults were defined as any GI consultation where there had been no ambulatory visit with a different GI in the two years prior. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of female patients seen by male GIs vs female GIs. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient and GI characteristics. Continuous variables were analyzed by the t-test, with p<0.05 suggestive of statistical significance. Odds ratios and their 95% CIs for the association of referral to a female GI and being a female patient were calculated. Result(s) From 2002 to 2019, the proportion of female gastroenterologists in Ontario increased from 15% (15/100) to 27% (78/292). During this 18-year period, female GIs saw a total of 17% of all consultations. Male GIs saw a greater number of consultations per year, though the gap closed over the period of observation. Specifically, each female GI in 2014-19 saw, on average, 776 patients (±41.8) compared to 578 (±59.2) in 2002-2007 (p<0.005) – a 34.5% increase; each male GI in 2014-2019 saw, on average, 905 patients (±7.2) compared to 824 (±25.0) in 2002-2007 (p<0.005) – a 9.8% increase. Female patients made up 56.7% of the total consultations over 2002-2019. There was evidence of channeling of female patients to female providers; in the early period, 72.4% of consults seen by female GIs were female, compared to only 56.8% of consults seen by male GIs (OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.98, 2.17]. By the late era (2014-2019), 64.1% of consults seen by female GIs were for female patients, compared to 53.3% for male GIs (OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.59, 1.66]. Image Conclusion(s) There has been a significant increase in the number of female GIs in Ontario in recent years, and female GIs are seeing significantly greater patient volumes in the later eras in comparison to earlier eras. Female GIs receive a higher proportion of consultations for female patients, though this proportion is declining over time. The extent to which this gender-based referral channelling influences patient care, patient outcomes or influences the gender-based provider pay gap requires further exploration. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below Other Please indicate your source of funding; IMAGINE-SPOR Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».