Objective
To understand gender trends among urologists included in “Top Doctor” lists as more
women practice urology, we (1) Evaluated whether Top Doctor lists reflect a contemporary
distribution of urologists by gender; (2) Describe regional differences in gender
composition of lists; (3) Report similarities and differences among men and women
Top Doctors.
Methods
All urologists in regional Top Doctor Castle Connolly lists published in magazines
between January 1, 2020 and June 22, 2021 were included. Physician attributes were
abstracted. American Urological Association (AUA) census data was used to compare
the number of men and women Top Doctor urologists to the number of practicing men
and women urologists within each list's zip codes. Log odds ratios (OR) and (95% confidence
intervals) were used to compare likelihood of list inclusion by gender overall and
by region.
Results
Four hundred and ninety-four Top Doctor urologists from 25 lists were analyzed, of
which 42 (8.50%) were women. Women urologists comprised 0%-27.8% of each list, with
7 lists (28.0%) including zero women urologists. Using AUA census data, OR for list
inclusion of men urologists compared to women was 1.31 (1.01, 1.70) overall, with
OR = 0.78 (0.36, 1.72) in the West, OR = 1.39 (1.03, 1.89) South, OR = 1.46 (0.8,
2.67) Northeast, OR = 1.90 (0.50, 7.18) Midwest. Women top urologists completed fellowship
more often than men (66.7%, 55.1%) and were significantly more likely to complete
female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) fellowship (P <.001).
Conclusion
Men urologists were significantly more likely to be included in Top Doctor lists than
women urologists. Top women urologists were significantly more likely to complete
FPMRS fellowship
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The gender gap in surgical residencies.JAMA Surg. 2020; 155: 893-894
- The State of Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States.Urology Workforce Census Bureau. 2020; 7
- Where are all the women in surgery?.AAMC Diversity and Inclusion | Med Educ. 2019;
- Estimating implicit and explicit gender bias among health care professionals and surgeons.JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2e196545
- Understanding the barriers to reporting sexual harassment in surgical training.Ann Surg. 2020; 271: 608-613
- Perceptions on gender disparity in surgery and surgical leadership: a multicenter mixed methods study.Surgery. 2020; 167: 743-750
- Women in urology.Urol Clin North Am. 2021; 48: 187-194
- Do Women Work Less Than Men in Urology: Data From the American Urological Association Census.Urology. 2018; 118: 71-75
- How do patients choose their doctors for primary care in a free market?.J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16: 1215-1220
- Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review.J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15: e24
- Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating.J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13: e95
- What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis.J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27: 685-692
- A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14: e38
- Patients' evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites.J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 942-946
- Top doctor warns of new symptom that could be added to official Covid-19 list.Hereford Times (Hereford, England). 2020;
- UK must become more self reliant for sake of healthcare workforce, says top doctor.BMJ. 2019; 367
- Sitting down is KILLING you! Heart disease, obesity, depression and crumbling bones - a terrifying new book by a top doctor reveals they are all linked to the hours we spend in chairs.Daily Mail. 2014;
- Physician and patient views on public physician rating websites: a cross-sectional study.J Gen Intern Med. 2017; 32: 626-631
- How social media, training, and demographics influence online reviews across three leading review websites for spine surgeons.Spine J. 2018; 18: 2081-2090
Connolly C. Nominations. https://nominations.castleconnolly.com/login
- Promotion disparities in academic urology.Urology. 2020; 138: 16-23
- Women are underrepresented in prestigious recognition awards in the american urological association.Urology. 2022; 160: 102-108
- Where Are the Women? The Underrepresentation of Women Physicians Among Recognition Award Recipients From Medical Specialty Societies.PM R. 2017; 9: 804-815
- Women physicians underrepresented in American Academy of Neurology recognition awards.Neurology. 2018; 91: e603-e614
- Representation by Gender of Recognition Award Recipients from Gastroenterology and Hepatology Professional Societies.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021; 30: 1508-1518
- The ‘inexorable zero.Harv Law Rev. 2004; 117: 1215-1235
Sarsons H. Interpreting Signals in the Labor Market: Evidence from Medical Referrals. 2017. Available at: https://scholarharvardedu/files/sarsons/files/sarsons_jmp.pdf. Accessed 8/18/2022.
- The validity of online patient ratings of physicians: analysis of physician peer reviews and patient ratings.JMIR. 2018; 7
- Physician Gender, Patient Risk, and Web-Based Reviews: Longitudinal Study of the Relationship Between Physicians' Gender and Their Web-Based Reviews.JMIR. 2022; 24
- Gender, soft skills, and patient experience in online physician reviews: a large-scale text analysis.J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22: e14455
- Operational efficiency and patient-centered health care: a view from online physician reviews.Operations Management. 2019; 65
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 28, 2022
Accepted:
November 15,
2022
Received:
August 31,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Funding: None.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
