Gender Bias in Urology: How Do Patients Really Choose Their Urologist?

Purpose: The present study aimed to investigate the influence of patients' and urologists' gender when choosing a urologist. With rising population diversity through immigration and generational differences, patient-centered healthcare has recently moved to the focus of European healthcare systems. As healthcare in urology often concentrates on sensitive topics, and often involves gender-specific diseases, research on the influence of gender on decision-making processes is of high importance. Understanding influence of gender on patients' choices in real life would provide patients, and physicians alike, with the means to provide better resources to achieve greater satisfaction from visits to a urologist. Patients and Methods: A questionnaire was prepared, and patients at our tertiary referral center were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in our survey. We collected questionnaires from 1012 patients during their visits from June 2021 to October 2021. Results: Patients were divided into groups according to their gender: male (n=763), female (n=246), and non-binary (n=3). Our patient cohort consisted of more men than women (75% vs 24%), with only three patients identifying as non-binary. Irrespective of the patients' own gender, patients preferred a male urologist when problems were considered embarrassing, limiting daily activities, or when worrisome. When problems were considered painful, all patients preferred a female urologist. When patients had had a previous positive experience with a female or male urologist, they preferred to be treated by a female or male urologist, respectively. Overall, 65% of patients stated a gender preference for at least one given situation, or consultation scenario. Conclusion: As the majority of our patients stated a gender preference, urological departments should be considerate of potential patients' preferences for urologist gender that may be based on the individual patient's history, taking a comprehensive approach to fulfill the patients' need for same gender urologists in educational hospitals and health care services.

Choosing a Specialist: An Explanatory Study of Factors Influencing Patients in Choosing a Urologist.

OBJECTIVES: While research on doctor-patient interaction has often focused on the decision-making abilities of physicians, it rarely centers around the question of how patients choose their respective practitioners. Research on fundamental decision processes is of high importance and understanding the factors that influence people's choices in real-life decision-making would potentially provide patients, and physicians alike, with the means to provide better resources to achieve greater satisfaction from visits to a medical practitioner. METHODS: At our tertiary referral center, patients were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in our survey. We collected questionnaires from 1,002 patients during their visit from November 2018 to February 2020. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V26.0 software (SPSS Statistics, Version 26.0.; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Results are reported as percentages for categorial variables. RESULTS: Our patient cohort consisted of a higher percentage of men than of women (82 vs. 18%) with significantly more men having a university-based education (44 vs. 31%; p = 0.001). Women were more likely to have statutory health insurance than men (85 vs. 74%; p = 0.013). Men significantly preferred to be treated by a doctor of the same sex (24 vs. 8%; p < 0.001), which significantly increased with age. Overall, more women than men trusted a referral by their primary care physician (75 vs. 66%, p = 0.017), while preference of a higher academic degree in the attending urologist was significantly correlated with the patients' education. CONCLUSIONS: Information on a specialist, such as professional qualifications and academic accomplishments, is easily accessible to patients with or without access to the Internet. However, recommendations and referrals, in addition to consistent care by the same treating physician, seem to be of high importance to all patients, regardless of gender or age.

Brief Distress Screening in Clinical Practice: Does it Help to Effectively Allocate Psycho-Oncological Support to Female Cancer Inpatients?

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of distress screening in cancer inpatient settings has rarely been investigated. This study evaluated a brief distress screening of inpatients in a breast cancer centre and a gynaecological cancer centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hospitalised patients with breast or gynaecological cancers were screened with the Distress Thermometer. Patients who scored above the cut-off, were referred by the medical staff, or self-referred were offered bedside psycho-oncological counselling. RESULTS: Of 125 patients, 68 (54.4%) received an offer of counselling, and 62 patients (49.6%) accepted. Most of the counselling was induced by distress screening. Only 4 (3.2%) patients self-referred to the counselling service. Of the counselled patients, 65.8% stated that they had substantially benefited from psycho-oncological support; only 5.6% of the non-counselled patients indicated that they might have benefited from psycho-oncological support. CONCLUSION: Almost all patients who will accept and benefit from psycho-oncological counselling can be identified if distress screening is used in conjunction with referrals by physicians and nurses. Distress screening is a worthwhile component in a framework of psycho-oncological support in a cancer inpatient setting. It paves the way to counselling for cancer inpatients who need it and are willing to accept it but hesitate to self-refer to psycho-oncological services.