Pregnancy among residents enrolled in general surgery (PREGS): a survey of residents in a single Canadian training program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interest in general surgery has declined, and lack of adequate accommodation for pregnancy and parenting may be a deterrent. We explored resident experiences with these issues within a single general surgery program. METHODS: We surveyed residents enrolled in the University of British Columbia general surgery program from 1997 to 2009 using a Web-based survey tool. Information regarding demographics, pregnancy, postpartum issues and issues pertaining to maternity/parenting policies was obtained. We used the Student t test, Z test and Fisher exact test for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 81 residents surveyed, 53 responded (65% response rate). There were fewer pregnancies during residency among female residents than among partners of male residents (PMRs; 9 pregnancies for 6 of 25 residents v. 23 pregnancies for 15 of 28 PMRs, p = 0.002). One of 9 pregnancies among female residents and 5 of 23 among PMRs ended in miscarriage (p > 0.99). Female residents and PMRs reported pregnancy-related complications with equal frequency. All female residents breastfed for at least 6 months; however, 67% (4 of 6) felt their resident role prevented them from breastfeeding as long as they would have liked. Most (5 of 6, 83%) pursued a graduate degree or research during their "maternity leave." More than 50% of residents reported that their own workload increased because of a colleague's pregnancy. Many (36 of 53, 68%) were unaware of the existence of any maternity/parenting policy, and most were in favour of instituting such a policy. CONCLUSION: Resident mothers do not breastfeed for the desired duration, and precluding factors must be explored. Contingency plans are needed so colleagues are not overburdened when pregnant residents cannot perform clinical duties. General surgery programs must have a formal policy addressing these issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".