Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42541226›Full record

ArticleO&G open2026

Exploring Mistreatment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents in the Clinical Learning Environment.

Jennifer M Keller, Karen George, AnnaMarie Connolly, Lisa Yanek, Erika Banks

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in O&G open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennifer M KellerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Education, Workforce, and Well-Being, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Karen GeorgeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Education, Workforce, and Well-Being, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York.
AnnaMarie ConnollyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Education, Workforce, and Well-Being, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Lisa YanekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Education, Workforce, and Well-Being, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Erika BanksDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont; Education, Workforce, and Well-Being, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Washington, DC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to determine 1) the prevalence of perceived mistreatment, 2) the source of mistreatment, and 3) the location where mistreatment occurred among obstetrics and gynecology residents.

methodsWe conducted a national survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents using an adapted validated questionnaire.

resultsOver half of participating obstetrics and gynecology residents reported mistreatment. The most common type of mistreatment reported was verbal or emotional abuse (57%). Patients/patients' families, attendings, nurses, and other residents were all common sources of mistreatment. The most frequent location was labor and delivery. Female, gender-diverse, Black, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer+ (LGBQ+) residents experienced mistreatment at higher rates.

conclusionObstetrics and gynecology residents report a high prevalence of mistreatment. Interventions to reduce mistreatment, especially on labor and delivery, will prove important to promote the respectful work environment necessary for optimal learning and patient care.

Identifiers

PMID42541226
PMCPMC13427382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.