Surgeon Sex and Postoperative Resource Utilization: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine associations between physician sex and use of postoperative healthcare resources among patients undergoing common surgeries in Ontario, Canada. Background: Prior studies have shown that patients of female physicians experience better outcomes and have lower healthcare costs compared with patients of male physicians. Understanding differences in resource utilization may offer insights into the care pathways and practice patterns contributing to these differences. Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing 1 of 25 common surgeries, between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019, in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the utilization of one of the following: intensive care unit admission, other medical interventions (eg, tracheostomy, new dialysis starts, and home oxygen), and discharge care needs (eg inpatient rehab, long-term care, and home care use) within 30 days. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics and adjusted using multivariable generalized estimating equations. Results: This population-based study included 1,100,193 patients (61.8% female). Patients treated by male surgeons had higher use of postoperative resources versus those with female surgeons within 30 days (adjusted rate 33.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.0–39.2 versus 31.2; 95% CI: 25.8–37.7), 90 days, and 1 year. Consistent with these findings, following adjustment for patient, surgeon, procedural, and hospital characteristics, patients treated by male surgeons were significantly more likely to utilize postoperative resources within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03–1.27; P = 0.010) and at other time points. This difference was primarily driven by the higher use of home care among patients with a male versus female surgeon at all time points (30 days: adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05–1.21; P = 0.002). Conclusions: Patients with male surgeons had higher postoperative resource utilization when compared with those treated by female surgeons, which was almost entirely driven by the higher use of home care. Further mixed-methods investigation is needed to better understand other potentially relevant factors including surgical outcomes, individual patient preferences, and surgical team decision-making.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".