Introduction: One of the important factors in achieving gender equity is ensuring equitable surgical training for all. Previous studies have shown that females get significantly lower surgical exposure than males in certain surgical specialties. Gender gap in surgical exposure has never been assessed in plastic surgery. To that end, the goal of this study was to assess if there are any differences in plastic surgery training between male and female residents. Methods: A survey was sent to all plastic surgery residency programs in Canada to assess the No. of surgeries residents operated on as a co-surgeon or primary assistant during their training. The survey also assessed career goals, level of interest in the specialty, and subjective perception of gender bias. Results: A total of 89 plastic surgery residents (59.3% participation rate) completed the survey and were included in the study. The average No. of reconstructive cases residents operated on as a co-surgeon or primary assistant was 245 ± 312 cases. There was no difference in either reconstructive or aesthetic surgery case logs between male and female residents ( p > .05). However, a significantly larger proportion of females (39%) compared to males (4%) felt that their gender limited their exposure to surgical cases and led to a worsening of their overall surgical training ( p < .001). Finally, a larger proportion of male residents were interested in academic careers while a larger proportion of female residents were interested in a community practice ( p = .024). Conclusion: While there is no evidence of differences in the volume of logged cases between genders, female surgical residents still feel that their respective gender limits their overall surgical training. Gender inequalities in training should be addressed by residency programs.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the significant inequities in the delivery of healthcare, vaccine inequity, and differential access to life-saving treatments, which have disproportionately impacted marginalized and racialized populations. In this article, we acknowledge and recognize the centuries-old legacies perpetuating inequity, injustice, and oppression, we discuss the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) and we call our Canadian plastic surgery colleagues and trainees to action. We propose a plan for (1) Education, (2) Mitigating Disparities in the Clinical Setting, and (3) Policy, Societies, and Leadership Education.
Background: Breast surgery is an area of practice where patients value before and after photographs (BAPs). Consensus is needed to develop guidelines to address the deficit in the literature regarding appropriate use of BAPs, as these may ultimately play a significant role in the breast surgery consent process. Methods: Expert breast reconstructive surgeons participated in a modified nominal group technique (NGT) to establish expert consensus on categories and criteria to be used when evaluating appropriate use of BAPs as part of informed consent. Endorsement rate of 75% and coefficients of variance within and between rounds were conducted to determine validity of each criteria item’s rank order. Results: Eight experts participated in the NGT in-person meeting and subsequent online survey. five of seven categories were endorsed for discussion: purpose, image type, anatomy, results, and photographic integrity. Overall consensus was obtained for six of 11 criteria. Criteria items found to have consensus were: patients considering surgery being the intended photograph audience (100% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.01), use of photographic images (75% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.04), defining the standard clinical photograph by having patients in the same body position (100% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.14), anonymizing images by removing all digital tags (88% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.03) and patient identifiers (75% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.00), not limiting the number of photograph sets needed for sufficient representation (100% endorsement, CV1 – CV2 = 0.07), and representing average outcomes (100%, CV1 – CV2 = 0.06). Conclusions: Early use of this validated and effective technique helps identify potential consensus categories and criteria that surgeons recommend for the use of BAPs in the informed consent process. Further study is required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.