ArticleBJUI compass2023
Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City.
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating gender disparities in urological care for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).BJUI compass · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.Investigative and clinical urology · 2024Article
- Factors that influence preference for male or female urologist among underserved patients in New York City.BJUI compass · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the prevalence of patient preference for male or female urologic provider and explore which patient characteristics influence this preference. Materials and Methods: After obtaining hospital Institutional Review Board approval, a 14-question survey in English and Spanish was administered across four general urology clinic sites in a single hospital system in New York City. The survey asked demographic questions and preference for a male or a female urologist. The survey included questions pertaining to the nature of the clinic visit and subsequent provider preference as well. Statistics were performed using Stata 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Results: A total of 540 patients completed the 14-question survey. The vast majority of survey respondents identified as male (90%). The largest proportion demographic groups were those aged 41-60 (47%), Hispanic or Latino (43%), Catholic (47%), unemployed (40%) and those with a high school level of education (34%). Most patients (60%) did not have a preference for a specific gender provider, whereas 37% preferred a male provider, and 3% preferred a female provider. On univariate analysis, patient age 25-40, less than high school education level and lack of employment were significant predictors of provider gender preference ( Conclusion: Patient gender, race and religion do not appear to influence their preference to be seen by a male or a female urologist in the clinic setting. However, patient age, unemployment and potentially educational attainment were significantly associated with a provider gender preference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.