MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415296503 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaf091

Patient complaints differ for male and female obstetrician-gynecologists: an exploration of 20 years of complaints data in Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4415296503 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erin A. Brennand, Nancy Hernández-Cerón, Iryna Hurava, Nicole Kain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComplaintGender equityEquity (law)MEDLINEYoung adult

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient complaints are valuable indicators of systemic issues in healthcare, offering opportunities to enhance care quality and safety. Obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) is a specialty particularly prone to complaints, reflecting its unique challenges related to patient population, sensitive subject matter, and physician-patient dynamics. The impact of physician sex on patient complaints is not well understood, particularly taking into context the changing demographics of the OBGYN workforce. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of all obstetrician-gynecologists registered with the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) between 2003 to 2024 linked to the CPSA Complaints database was used. Quantitative analysis included comparisons of mean and proportion, logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival, and Cox regression analyses to assess associations between physician characteristics and complaints. Adjusted models accounted for physician sex, birth year, and training location, measured using the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index as a proxy for healthcare system similarity to Canada. Content analysis categorized the anonymized complaint narratives provided insights themes of grievances. RESULTS: The cohort included 449 OBGYN physicians (59.2% female, 40.8% male). Overall, 44.8% of physicians experienced at least one complaint during the study period. Male physicians were more likely to receive complaints than female physicians (52.5% vs. 39.5%), with higher adjusted odds of ethics-related complaints (aOR 2.16, 95% CI 1.12-4.16). Adjusted analyses revealed no significant differences in overall complaint frequency or time to first complaint between male and female OBGYNs. Content analysis highlighted recurring themes of communication, professionalism, and patient-centered care. CONCLUSION: While crude analyses suggested sex-based differences in complaint patterns, these associations were attenuated after adjusting for physician age and training location, indicating that the total effect of sex on complaints may be mediated by these factors. However, male physicians remained more likely to receive ethics-related complaints even after adjustment, suggesting a possible direct association. These findings emphasize the need for targeted professional development focused on culturally sensitive communication and patient rapport and underscore the need to consider sex and gender dynamics in OBGYN to promote equity and improve patient care. Future research should explore systemic and structural contributors to complaint patterns across broader geographic and clinical contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Quality in Health CareSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207