Perceived Economic Strain, Subjective Social Status, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Utilization in U.S. Men-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Although socioeconomic status (SES) is fundamentally related to underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the role of perceived economic strain and subjective social status with CRC screening is understudied. The aim of this study was to investigate whether greater perceived economic strain or lower subjective social status would decrease the odds of CRC screening uptake and being up-to-date with guideline-recommended CRC screening. We also explored interactions with household income and educational attainment. Cross-sectional survey-based data from men aged 45-75 years living in the United States (N = 499) were collected in February 2022. Study outcomes were ever completing a stool- or exam-based CRC screening test and being up-to-date with CRC screening. Perceived economic strain and subjective social status were the predictors. We conducted logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Greater perceptions of economic strain decreased odds of being up-to-date with CRC screening. Household income modified the association between perceived economic strain and completing a stool-based test; the association was stronger for men from lower-income households. In unadjusted models, higher subjective social status increased odds of completing an exam-based test and being up-to-date with CRC screening. Our findings suggest that experiencing economic strain may interfere with men's CRC screening decisions and may capture additional information about barriers to CRC screening utilization beyond those captured by income or education.

Social media for patient engagement.

Who better to serve as "Dr. Google" than an actual doctor? Patients often present with a list of symptoms and turn to their favorite search engine to understand their constellation of symptoms. In this editorial, we attempt to address the following key elements in surgeons' use of social media (#SoMe4Surgery) as a tool for patient engagement: marketing, demystifying and differentiating the surgical specialty, a fast track to the latest specialty-specific guidelines and recommendations, and combatting medical misinformation. The increased social media presence in the medical space can be used to improve health literacy and simplify the navigational process of one's healthcare journey. These platforms can humanize physicians, make them more accessible, and bridge the gap that sometimes exists, preventing patients from moving to their next step in care due to fear. The extent of social media use in healthcare far surpasses this brief discussion, and it is up to the individual user to exercise the appropriate uses and responsibilities regarding patient communication.

Intersectionality: Understanding the Interdependent Systems of Discrimination and Disadvantage.

The fight for gender equity in surgery extends well beyond the simplistic binary construct of man versus woman. Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term "intersectionality," which is used to describe the dynamic associations between the concepts of race, class, gender, and other individualized characteristics and their real-time interaction with one another in our society. Our review of intersectional identities among medical professionals attempts to examine the trends of difficulties at the intersections of an individual's identity within academic surgery, leadership in academic surgery, and the effects on patient outcomes in the United States. Specifically, we will focus on the interaction of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, family, disability, and international status. Much more research focused specifically on intersectional groups is required to statistically identify to what degree overlapping identities impact professional and patient care outcomes. Recognition of the problem and candid discussions will allow for vast improvements not only in surgical culture, but also in surgical care.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39). CONCLUSION: When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Small Bowel Obstruction in the Virgin Abdomen.

This article highlights the quagmire of the surgeon who encounters a small bowel obstruction in the absence of previous abdominopelvic surgery. Historic literature implies urgent surgical intervention is required; however, there is no current standard of care to guide management. Key principles of general surgery apply, and definitive management is based on the provider's clinical judgment after synthesizing key clinical history and additional diagnostic imaging studies.