Pregnancy outcomes in female physicians in procedural versus non-procedural specialties - 15/09/17
Abstract |
Background |
Procedural based medical specialties require a longer training period and more intensive physical demands. The impact of working in procedural versus nonprocedural fields on pregnancy outcomes is not well understood.
Methods |
Data from 1559 US attending female physician mothers was gathered via an anonymous, IRB-approved online survey.
Results |
Of the cohort, 400 (25.7%) reported practicing in a procedural field. Women in procedural fields were slightly older at the time of their most recent pregnancy. Rates of assistive reproductive technology use (procedural: 20.2% vs nonprocedural: 23.3%, P = 0.2), missing work during pregnancy (28.2% vs 24.5%, P = 0.13), cesarean delivery rate (36.0% vs 34.5%, P = 0.61), and missed work due to preterm labor (12.3% vs 12.5%, P = 0.91) were similar between the two groups.
Conclusion |
Although proceduralists were more likely to delay pregnancy, women in procedural fields had comparable rates of reproductive assistance, cesarean delivery, and missed work due to pregnancy-related complications despite the perceived challenges facing this group.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Maternity outcomes, Infertility, Physicians, Preterm labor
Plan
Vol 214 - N° 4
P. 599-603 - octobre 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- A 20-year review of pediatric pregnant trauma from a Level I trauma center
- Tanya L. Zakrison, Xiomara Ruiz, Nicholas Namias, Marie Crandall
- Predicting delayed discharge in a multimodal Enhanced Recovery Pathway
- Deborah S. Keller, Irlna Tantchou, Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez, Daniel P. Geisler
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?