TY - JOUR
T1 - Endovascular treatment decision in acute stroke
T2 - does physician gender matter? Insights from UNMASK EVT, an international, multidisciplinary survey
AU - Ospel, Johanna Maria
AU - Kashani, Nima
AU - Wilson, Alexis T.
AU - Fischer, Urs
AU - Campbell, Bruce C.V.
AU - Sylaja, Pillai N.
AU - Yoshimura, Shinichi
AU - Rabinstein, Alejandro A.
AU - Turjman, Francis
AU - Mitchell, Peter
AU - Kim, Byung Moon
AU - Cherian, Mathew P.
AU - Heo, Ji Hoe
AU - Baxter, Blaise W.
AU - Podlasek, Anna
AU - Foss, Mona
AU - Menon, Bijoy K.
AU - Almekhlafi, Mohammed A.
AU - Demchuk, Andrew M.
AU - Hill, Michael D.
AU - Saposnik, Gustavo
AU - Goyal, Mayank
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/3/1
Y1 - 2020/3/1
N2 - Background and purpose Differences in the treatment practice of female and male physicians have been shown in several medical subspecialties. It is currently not known whether this also applies to endovascular stroke treatment. The purpose of this study was to explore whether there are differences in endovascular treatment decisions made by female and male stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists. Methods In an international survey, stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists were randomly assigned 10 case scenarios and asked how they would treat the patient: (A) assuming there were no external constraints and (B) given their local working conditions. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline demographics, and the adjusted OR for physician gender as a predictor of endovascular treatment decision was calculated using logistic regression. Results 607 physicians (97 women, 508 men, 2 who did not wish to declare) participated in this survey. Physician gender was neither a significant predictor for endovascular treatment decision under assumed ideal conditions (endovascular therapy was favored by 77.0% of female and 79.3% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.806) nor under current local resources (endovascular therapy was favored by 69.1% of female and 76.9% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.814). Conclusion Endovascular therapy decision making between male and female physicians did not differ under assumed ideal conditions or under current local resources.
AB - Background and purpose Differences in the treatment practice of female and male physicians have been shown in several medical subspecialties. It is currently not known whether this also applies to endovascular stroke treatment. The purpose of this study was to explore whether there are differences in endovascular treatment decisions made by female and male stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists. Methods In an international survey, stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists were randomly assigned 10 case scenarios and asked how they would treat the patient: (A) assuming there were no external constraints and (B) given their local working conditions. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline demographics, and the adjusted OR for physician gender as a predictor of endovascular treatment decision was calculated using logistic regression. Results 607 physicians (97 women, 508 men, 2 who did not wish to declare) participated in this survey. Physician gender was neither a significant predictor for endovascular treatment decision under assumed ideal conditions (endovascular therapy was favored by 77.0% of female and 79.3% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.806) nor under current local resources (endovascular therapy was favored by 69.1% of female and 76.9% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.814). Conclusion Endovascular therapy decision making between male and female physicians did not differ under assumed ideal conditions or under current local resources.
KW - stroke
KW - thrombectomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075050426&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015003
DO - 10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015003
M3 - Article
C2 - 31363043
AN - SCOPUS:85075050426
SN - 1759-8478
VL - 12
SP - 256
EP - 259
JO - Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery
JF - Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery
IS - 3
ER -