Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2025
Effects of a Gender-Balancing Strategy on Resident Panels in a Primary Care Setting.
Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients often prefer gender concordance when choosing a primary care practitioner. In a trainee setting, this may lead to unequal training opportunities for male and female resident physicians. Residency leadership may be interested in ways to promote balance in patient empanelment.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of an intervention to equalize imbalance in patient gender on resident primary care panels.
designObservational cohort study.
participantsCategorial internal medicine residents beginning residency in 2020.
interventionsThe panels of internal medicine residents were manually rebalanced at the beginning of training for a new cohort of residents with the goal of having similar numbers of male and female patients on each resident's panel. MAIN MEASURES: Panel data was observed for 2 years following intervention. Number of male patients, number of female patients, and overall panel size were compared between male and female residents at baseline, 6 months, and 24 months. KEY
resultsThe analysis included 28 female residents and 20 male residents. After rebalancing, baseline panels had similar numbers of male patients (median of 50 on both male and female residents' panels; average panel 54.7% male) and female patients (median of 41.5 on female residents' panels and 41 on male residents' panels; average panel 45.3% female). At the end of the follow-up period, a significant difference was observed in the median number of male patients (59.5 and 43.5; p < 0.001) and female patients (33.5 and 48.5; p < 0.001) between male and female residents, but no difference was observed in overall panel size.
conclusionsA steady drift towards gender concordance was observed over 2 years following a rebalancing intervention. Program leadership overseeing primary care empanelment for resident physicians may consider periodic rebalancing of panels in addition to other interventions to ensure equal training opportunities and best prepare residents for future practice.
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.