46 The Hidden Truth About Gender Bias in Surgery. A Systematic Review

Introduction

Gender discrimination remains pervasive in surgery, significantly impacting current and future surgeons and population health. This study analyses the gender barriers and critical retention factors for female surgeons and trainees in surgery.

Method

Five electronic databases were searched till May 2020. Titles and abstracts were sieved, followed by a full text review. Data synthesis and inductive thematic analysis were conducted using the Thomas and Harden methodology.

Result

14 articles were included, involving 528 participants. Four themes were generated–unfavourable working environment, male-dominated culture, societal pressures and progress towards gender equality. Females in surgery often faced harassment, disrespect and perceptions of incompetence, resulting in hostile work conditions, which were aggravated by the inadequate support and mentorship. The persistence of male-dominated cultures was observed, with females facing prejudice and exclusion from professional and social circles. Differential treatment and higher expectations of female surgeons also arose from entrenched societal pressures. Despite these, increased acceptance of motherhood and greater recognition of contributions by female surgeons were reported, indicating some progress in gendered culture.

Conclusions

There is a need to increase female surgical leadership and allocate resources to address the deep-rooted causes of biased surgical culture and ingrained perceptions, to achieve greater gender equality in surgery.

Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions.

METHODS

Keyword searches for terms such as 'colorectal', 'colonoscopy' and 'qualitative' were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events.

CONCLUSION

Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.