Practice patterns of female urologists in Australia and New Zealand

Women doctors in female urology: current status and implications for future workforce

OBJECTIVE

To objectively determine the percentage of female trainees and consultants who are interested in their career being focussed on female urology (FU) in order to facilitate the improved planning for the future of this sub-specialty.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was an international cross-sectional study spanning 1 year, from December 2018 to December 2019. An anonymous, voluntary survey was generated using the online survey generator Survey monkey^® . The survey was sent to urology consultants and trainees who were female from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

RESULTS

The total response rate to the survey was 61%. Up to 50% of female consultants and trainees selected a career in FU due to their gender, but up to 75% of respondents were also interested in FU of their own accord. Common concerns held by a majority of respondents included both the medical community's and the public's lack of awareness of FU as a component of urological expertise. Despite these concerns, most of the trainees were not concerned regarding their future work opportunities in FU, and many had intentions to pursue a fellowship in FU.

CONCLUSION

Female urology is an increasingly popular sub-specialisation of urology, given the steady increase in the intake of female trainees. Similar trends were identified internationally. Urology training in this area will need to continue to increase the community's and the primary health care referrer's awareness in order to ensure the continued success and growth of the sub-specialty.

Patient preference for urologist gender

OBJECTIVES

To determine the factors associated with patients preferring the gender of their treating urologist in various clinical settings.

METHODS

A total of 400 urology outpatients participated in a structured interview on the nature of their presenting complaint, perception of their complaint and the preference for the gender of their urologist in four specific scenarios of consultation, physical examination, office-based procedure and surgery. Patients who expressed a gender preference received follow-up telephone calls.

RESULTS

A gender preference was expressed by 63 (15.8%), 108 (27.0%), 89 (22.3%) and 29 (7.3%) patients for the scenarios of consultation, physical examination, office-based procedure and surgery, respectively. Patients were more likely to have a preference if they were female or had a condition they considered embarrassing, with most preferences being for a gender-concordant urologist. Reasons included a previous negative experience and perceived gender-specific treatment styles. Patients who subsequently saw a doctor of the opposite gender to their preference were more likely to change their mind if their clinical interaction was positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Female patients, those with a perceived embarrassing condition and patients undergoing examination or office-based procedures are more likely to have a gender preference for their urologist, with a subsequent positive experience leading to patients discarding pre-existing preferences. With improved understanding of how patient characteristics, perception of their condition and previous experiences can affect their choices in various clinical situations, urologists can better meet patient expectations and address barriers to healthcare in urology.