Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
Do you wish to request the book?
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City
2023
Overview
Objective
To examine the prevalence of patient preference for male or female urologic provider and explore which patient characteristics influence this preference.
Materials and Methods
After obtaining hospital Institutional Review Board approval, a 14‐question survey in English and Spanish was administered across four general urology clinic sites in a single hospital system in New York City. The survey asked demographic questions and preference for a male or a female urologist. The survey included questions pertaining to the nature of the clinic visit and subsequent provider preference as well. Statistics were performed using Stata 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
Results
A total of 540 patients completed the 14‐question survey. The vast majority of survey respondents identified as male (90%). The largest proportion demographic groups were those aged 41–60 (47%), Hispanic or Latino (43%), Catholic (47%), unemployed (40%) and those with a high school level of education (34%). Most patients (60%) did not have a preference for a specific gender provider, whereas 37% preferred a male provider, and 3% preferred a female provider. On univariate analysis, patient age 25–40, less than high school education level and lack of employment were significant predictors of provider gender preference (p < 0.05), with most patients indicating a male provider preference. On multivariate analysis of gender, age, education level and employment status, gender and education level were not significant predictors of preference, whereas age 25–40 and being unemployed were significant predictors (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
Patient gender, race and religion do not appear to influence their preference to be seen by a male or a female urologist in the clinic setting. However, patient age, unemployment and potentially educational attainment were significantly associated with a provider gender preference.
