Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- - (4)
- Career (2)
- Feminization (2)
- Satisfaction (2)
- Surgical discipline (2)
- Work-life balance (2)
- prostate cancer (2)
- radical prostatectomy (2)
- survey (2)
- attitudes (1)
- certified prostate cancer centers (1)
- characterization of patients (1)
- clinical decision-making (1)
- decision regret (1)
- early detection of cancer (1)
- guideline adherence (1)
- healthcare surveys (1)
- patient-reported outcome (1)
- perioperative supportive measures (1)
- physicians (1)
- prostate-specific antigen (1)
- prostatic neoplasms (1)
Institute
Publisher
- MDPI (2)
- S. Karger AG (2)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (1)
Introduction: Senior urology physicians represent a heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. No reliable data on gender-specific variations among senior urology physicians are available concerning professional and personal aspects. Methods: The objective of this study was to analyze professional perspectives, professional and personal settings, and individual career goals. A Web-based survey containing 55 items was designed which was available for senior physicians at German urologic centers between February and April 2019. Gender-specific differences were evaluated using bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression models. Results: One hundred and ninety-two surveys were evaluable including 29 female senior physicians (15.1%). Ninety-five percent would choose urology again as their field of specialization – with no significant gender-specific difference. 81.2% of participants rate the position of senior physician as a desirable career goal (comparing sexes: p = 0.220). Based on multivariate models, male participants self-assessed themselves significantly more frequently autonomously safe performing laparoscopic, open, and endourologic surgery. Male senior physicians declared 7 times more often to run for the position of head of department/full professor. Conclusion: This first study on professional and personal aspects among senior urology physicians demonstrates gender-specific variations concerning self-assessment of surgical expertise and future career goals. The creation of well-orchestrated human resources development strategies especially adapted to the needs of female urologists seems advisable.
Introduction: Senior urology physicians represent a heterogeneous group covering various clinical priorities and career objectives. No reliable data on gender-specific variations among senior urology physicians are available concerning professional and personal aspects. Methods: The objective of this study was to analyze professional perspectives, professional and personal settings, and individual career goals. A Web-based survey containing 55 items was designed which was available for senior physicians at German urologic centers between February and April 2019. Gender-specific differences were evaluated using bootstrap-adjusted multivariate logistic regression models. Results: One hundred and ninety-two surveys were evaluable including 29 female senior physicians (15.1%). Ninety-five percent would choose urology again as their field of specialization – with no significant gender-specific difference. 81.2% of participants rate the position of senior physician as a desirable career goal (comparing sexes: p = 0.220). Based on multivariate models, male participants self-assessed themselves significantly more frequently autonomously safe performing laparoscopic, open, and endourologic surgery. Male senior physicians declared 7 times more often to run for the position of head of department/full professor. Conclusion: This first study on professional and personal aspects among senior urology physicians demonstrates gender-specific variations concerning self-assessment of surgical expertise and future career goals. The creation of well-orchestrated human resources development strategies especially adapted to the needs of female urologists seems advisable.
Simple Summary
This multicenter study investigated the extent of patient’s decision regret (PatR) in patients with prostate cancer comparing different surgical modalities. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has replaced open radical prostatectomy as the surgical standard of care in many countries worldwide. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating the difference in patient-relevant outcomes between both approaches is still lacking. In this context, PatR is increasingly moving into the scientific focus. Our study shows a critical PatR in slightly more than one third of patients about 15 months after surgery. Patients who underwent robot-assisted surgery, and also patients without postoperative urinary stress incontinence, report significantly lower PatR. Likewise, this difference was also demonstrated for patients who decided together with their treating physician on the specific surgical procedure (consensual decision making). Our study helps to further establish PatR as an important endpoint in the setting of radical prostatectomy and identifies criteria which may be addressed to reduce PatR.
Abstract
Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0–100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.
Simple Summary
This German multicenter study investigated the importance of different supportive measures offered to patients with prostate cancer who undergo surgery (radical prostatectomy). A number of these supportive measures are required during the certification of a urologic hospital as prostate cancer center. However, a broad scientific basis evaluating these measures from the patient’s perspective is still lacking. In this study, patients were asked to rate the relevance of several supportive measures and to estimate the effective availability of these different supportive measures at their urologic clinic about 15 months after surgery. Our study highlights that only six of fifteen different supportive measures were rated as very relevant by patients. None of these six supportive measures were offered more intensively at the certified clinics compared to the non-certified clinics according to the patients. Our study helps to identify those supportive measures with the highest subjective impact on patients in this setting.
Abstract
Certification as a prostate cancer center requires the offer of several supportive measures to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). However, it remains unclear how patients estimate the relevance of these measures and whether the availability of these measures differs between certified prostate cancer centers (CERTs) and non-certified centers (NCERTs). In 20 German urologic centers, a survey comprising questions on the relevance of 15 supportive measures was sent to 1000 patients at a median of 15 months after RP. Additionally, patients were asked to rate the availability of these measures using a four-item Likert scale. The aim of this study was to compare these ratings between CERTs and NCERTs. The response rate was 75.0%. In total, 480 patients underwent surgery in CERTs, and 270 in NCERTs. Patients rated 6/15 supportive measures as very relevant: preoperative medical counselling concerning treatment options, a preoperative briefing answering last questions, preoperative pelvic floor exercises (PFEs), postoperative PFEs, postoperative social support, and postoperative rehabilitation addressing physical fitness recovery. These ratings showed no significant difference between CERTs and NCERTs (p = 0.133–0.676). In addition, 4/9 of the remaining criteria were rated as more detailed by patients in CERTs. IMPROVE represents the first study worldwide to evaluate a patient-reported assessment of the supportive measures accompanying RP. Pertinent offers vary marginally between CERTs and NCERTs.