Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36353408›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022

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

Alexander Tamalunas, Philipp Lenau, Leo Federico Stadelmeier, Jan-Niclas Mumm, Theresa Vilsmaier, Henrik Höhn, Maja-Lena Mumm, Raphaela Waidelich, Jozefina Casuscelli, Giuseppe Magistro and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Re-examining equity in urology Evaluating the emergence of unintended bias against male clinicians and academics.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Alexander TamalunasDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4659-2262
Philipp LenauDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Leo Federico StadelmeierDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan-Niclas MummDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Theresa VilsmaierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Henrik HöhnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Maja-Lena MummDepartment of Political and Social Sciences, Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Raphaela WaidelichDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jozefina CasuscelliDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Giuseppe MagistroDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alexander BuchnerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7895-7070
Thomas KolbenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1418-8588
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin HennenbergDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

decision makinggenderhealth economicshealth services researchmedical researchpatient-centered careperson-centered medicinepublic healthsexurologist

Identifiers

PMID36353408
PMCPMC9639417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.