What Are the Challenges Related to Family Planning, Pregnancy, and Parenthood Faced by Women in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".