Dataset Information

Which Subspecialties Do Female Orthopaedic Surgeons Choose and Why?: Identifying the Role of Mentorship and Additional Factors in Subspecialty Choice.

ABSTRACT: Limited data exist delineating the reasons women choose subspecialties within orthopaedics. Purpose:(1) To perform a survey that determines subspecialties female orthopaedic surgeons select and (2) to analyze the motivations behind their choices. Methods:A 10-question survey was distributed via e-mail to the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society (RJOS), Texas Orthopaedic Association (TOA), and to a private internet page for women in Orthopaedics, which covered the area of subspecialty practice, motivations, and demographic data. Practicing female orthopaedic surgeons, fellows, or fellowship-matched residents were included. Respondents' ranked motivations when deciding for or against a subspecialty were analyzed and comparisons made. Results:Of the 304 survey responses, 288 met inclusion criteria. The most common subspecialties were hand (24.0%), pediatrics (22.6%), and sports medicine (16.3%). A higher proportion of younger surgeons are electing to subspecialize in sports medicine, whereas a lower proportion of younger surgeons are pursuing general orthopaedics. Top-ranked reasons for selecting a subspecialty were personal satisfaction (50.8%), intellectual stimulation (42.1%), and strong mentorship (37.4%). The most common reason for not selecting a subspecialty was lack of interest (60.6%). Conclusion:Strong mentorship was the largest extrinsic/modifiable factor that affected the decision-making process. A continued focus on mentorship will be necessary to encourage future female orthopaedic surgeons to enter this field and inspire them to explore a different set of subspecialties.

SUBMITTER: Bratescu RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7028786 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Which Subspecialties Do Female Orthopaedic Surgeons Choose and Why?: Identifying the Role of Mentorship and Additional Factors in Subspecialty Choice.

Bratescu Rachel A RA Gardner Stephanie S SS Jones Jaclyn M JM Siff Todd E TE Lambert Bradley S BS Harris Joshua D JD Liberman Shari R SR

Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews 20200120 1

Limited data exist delineating the reasons women choose subspecialties within orthopaedics.<h4>Purpose</h4>(1) To perform a survey that determines subspecialties female orthopaedic surgeons select and (2) to analyze the motivations behind their choices.<h4>Methods</h4>A 10-question survey was distributed via e-mail to the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society (RJOS), Texas Orthopaedic Association (TOA), and to a private internet page for women in Orthopaedics, which covered the area of subspecialty p ...[more]

PMID: 32159066

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Over the past decade, there has been significant growth in the awareness and understanding of fragility among orthopaedic surgeons in the context of osteoporotic fractures and with it, improvements in the recognition and management of fragility fractures. Emerging as a major clinical and research focus in aged care is the concept of frailty and its associations with fragility, sarcopenia, falls and rehabilitation. Currently, research is lacking on how orthopaedic surgeons perceive frailty and the role of frailty screening. A baseline understanding of these perceptions is needed to inform integration of frailty identification and management for patient optimization in orthopaedic practices, as well as research and education efforts of patients and healthcare professionals in orthopaedic contexts. METHODS:We used an exploratory design guided by qualitative description to conduct 15 semi-structured telephone and in-person interviews across three orthopaedic surgeon subgroups (Registrars, Junior Consultants, and Senior Consultants). Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively and was guided by thematic saturation. RESULTS:Orthopaedic surgeons have a disparate understanding of frailty. Between colleagues, frailty is often referred to non-specifically to suggest a general state of risk to the patient. Frailty screening is regarded positively but its specific utility in orthopaedic environments is questioned. Easy-to-administer frailty screening tools that are not exclusive assessments of functional status are viewed most satisfactorily. However these tools are rarely used. CONCLUSIONS:There is little understanding among orthopaedic surgeons of frailty as a phenotype. Beliefs around modifiability of frailty were dissimilar as were the impact of related risk factors, such a cognitive status, chronic disease, social isolation, and environmental influences. This in turn may significantly impact on the occurrence and treatment outcomes of fragility fracture, a common orthopaedic problem in older populations. This study highlights need for knowledge translation efforts (e.g. education) to achieve cohesive understanding of frailty among health professionals.

Project description:BackgroundSo-called "hazardous attitudes" (macho, impulsive, antiauthority, resignation, invulnerable, and confident) were identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Canadian Air Transport Administration as contributing to road traffic incidents among college-aged drivers and felt to be useful for the prevention of aviation accidents. The concept of hazardous attitudes may also be useful in understanding adverse events in surgery, but it has not been widely studied.Questions/purposesWe surveyed a cohort of orthopaedic surgeons to determine the following: (1) What is the prevalence of hazardous attitudes in a large cohort of orthopaedic surgeons? (2) Do practice setting and/or demographics influence variation in hazardous attitudes in our cohort of surgeons? (3) Do surgeons feel they work in a climate that promotes patient safety?MethodsWe asked the members of the Science of Variation Group-fully trained, practicing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons from around the world-to complete a questionnaire validated in college-aged drivers measuring six attitudes associated with a greater likelihood of collision and used by pilots to assess and teach aviation safety. We accepted this validation as applicable to surgeons and modified the questionnaire accordingly. We also asked them to complete the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing the absence of a safety climate that is based on the patient safety cultures in healthcare organizations instrument. Three hundred sixty-four orthopaedic surgeons participated, representing a 47% response rate of those with correct email addresses who were invited.ResultsThirty-eight percent (137 of 364 surgeons) had at least one score that would have been considered dangerously high in pilots (> 20), including 102 with dangerous levels of macho (28%) and 41 with dangerous levels of self-confidence (11%). After accounting for possible confounding variables, the variables most closely associated with a macho attitude deemed hazardous in pilots were supervision of surgical trainees in the operating room (p = 0.003); location of practice in Canada (p = 0.059), Europe (p = 0.021), and the United States (p = 0.005); and being an orthopaedic trauma surgeon (p = 0.046) (when compared with general orthopaedic surgeons), but accounted for only 5.3% of the variance (p < 0.001). On average, 19% of surgeon responses to the Modified Safety Climate Questionnaire implied absence of a safety climate.ConclusionsHazardous attitudes are common among orthopaedic surgeons and relate in small part to demographics and practice setting. Future studies should further validate the measure of hazardous attitudes among surgeons and determine if they are associated with preventable adverse events. We agree with aviation safety experts that awareness of amelioration of such attitudes might improve safety in all complex, high-risk endeavors, including surgery-a line of thinking that merits additional research.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing social media presence in healthcare has provided physicians with new ways to engage with patients. However, foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons have been found to underuse social media platforms despite their known benefits for patients and surgeons. Thus, this study sought to investigate the reasons for this phenomenon and to identify potential barriers to social media utilization in clinical practice.MethodsA 19-question survey was distributed to active attending physicians identified through the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society membership database. The survey included demographic, practice characteristics, and social media use questions assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitudes toward social media.ResultsFifty-eight surgeons were included. Most respondents were male (n = 43, 74.1%), in private practice (n = 31, 53.5%), and described their practice to be greater than 51% elective procedures (n = 46, 79.4%). The average years in practice was 14.8 years (standard deviation, SD: 10.0 years). A total of 32.8% (n = 19) of surgeons reported using social media as part of their clinical practice. Facebook (n = 19, 32.8%), a professional website or blog (n = 18, 31.0%), and LinkedIn (n = 15, 25.9%) were the most used platforms-primarily for practice marketing or brand development (n = 19, 32.8%). A total of 58.6% (n = 34) of surgeons reported they did not use social media. The primary reasons were the time commitment (n = 31, 53.5%), concerns about obscuring professional boundaries (n = 22, 37.9%), and concerns regarding confidentiality (n = 11, 19.0%). Many surgeons reported that social media positively influences foot and ankle surgery (n = 23, 39.7%), although no individual predictors for these views could be identified.ConclusionsFoot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons tended to view social media use positively, but the time investment and concerns over professionalism and confidentiality pose challenges to its use. Given the influence of a surgeon's social media identity on patient satisfaction and practice building, efforts should be made to streamline social media use for foot and ankle surgeons to establish their online presence.Level of evidenceLevel IV, cross-sectional study.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the ability of surgeons to predict the outcome of treatment for meniscal tears by arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and exercise therapy in middle-aged patients. DESIGN AND SETTING:Electronic survey. Orthopaedic surgeon survey participants were presented 20 patient profiles. These profiles were derived from a randomised clinical trial comparing APM with exercise therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears. From each treatment group (APM and exercise therapy), we selected five patients with the best (responders) and five patients with the worst (non-responders) knee function after treatment. 1111 orthopaedic surgeons and residents in the Netherlands and Australia were invited to participate in the survey. INTERVENTIONS:For each of the 20 patient profiles, surgeons (unaware of treatment allocation) had to choose between APM and exercise therapy as preferred treatment and subsequently had to estimate the expected change in knee function for both treatments on a 5-point Likert Scale. Finally, surgeons were asked which patient characteristics affected their treatment choice. MAIN OUTCOMES:The primary outcome was the surgeons' percentage correct predictions. We also compared this percentage between experienced knee surgeons and other orthopaedic surgeons, and between treatment responders and non-responders. RESULTS:We received 194 (17%) complete responses for all 20 patient profiles, resulting in 3880 predictions. Overall, 50.0% (95% CI 39.6% to 60.4%) of the predictions were correct, which equals the proportion expected by chance. Experienced knee surgeons were not better in predicting outcome than other orthopaedic surgeons (50.4% vs 49.5%, respectively; p=0.29). The percentage correct predictions was lower for patient profiles of non-responders (34%; 95%?CI 21.3% to 46.6%) compared with responders (66.0%; 95%?CI 57.0% to 75.0%; p=0.01).In general, bucket handle tears, knee locking and failed non-operative treatment directed the surgeons' choice towards APM, while higher level of osteoarthritis, degenerative aetiology and the absence of locking complaints directed the surgeons' choice towards exercise therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Surgeons' criteria for deciding that surgery was indicated did not pass statistical examination. This was true regardless of a surgeon's experience. These results suggest that non-surgical management is appropriate as first-line therapy in middle-aged patients with symptomatic non-obstructive meniscal tears. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462134.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterise the contributing factors that affect medical students' subspecialty choice and to estimate the extent of influence of individual factors on the students' decision-making process.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search of the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Web of Science, CNKI and PubMed databases was conducted for studies published between January 1977 and June 2018. Information concerning study characteristics, influential factors and the extent of their influence (EOI) was extracted independently by two trained investigators. EOI is the percentage level that describes how much each of the factors influenced students' choice of subspecialty. The recruited medical students include students in medical school, internship, residency training and fellowship, who are about to or have just made a specialty choice. The estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model due to the between-study heterogeneity.ResultsData were extracted from 75 studies (882 209 individuals). Overall, the factors influencing medical students' choice of subspecialty training mainly included academic interests (75.29%), competencies (55.15%), controllable lifestyles or flexible work schedules (53.00%), patient service orientation (50.04%), medical teachers or mentors (46.93%), career opportunities (44.00%), workload or working hours (37.99%), income (34.70%), length of training (32.30%), prestige (31.17%), advice from others (28.24%) and student debt (15.33%), with significant between-study heterogeneity (p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed that the EOI of academic interests was higher in developed countries than that in developing countries (79.66% [95% CI 70.73% to 86.39%] vs 60.41% [95% CI 43.44% to 75.19%]; Q=3.51, p=0.02). The EOI value of prestige was lower in developed countries than that in developing countries (23.96% [95% CI 19.20% to 29.47%] vs 47.65% [95% CI 34.41% to 61.24%]; Q=4.71, p=0.01).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis provided a quantitative evaluation of the top 12 influencing factors associated with medical students' choice of subspecialty. Our findings provide the basis for the development of specific, effective strategies to optimise the distribution of physicians among different departments by modifying these influencing factors.

Dataset Information

Which Subspecialties Do Female Orthopaedic Surgeons Choose and Why?: Identifying the Role of Mentorship and Additional Factors in Subspecialty Choice.

Publications

Which Subspecialties Do Female Orthopaedic Surgeons Choose and Why?: Identifying the Role of Mentorship and Additional Factors in Subspecialty Choice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets