Search

Importance: Unlike other surgical specialties, obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) has been predominantly female for the last decade. The association of this with gender bias and sexual harassment is not known., Objective: To systematically review the prevalence of sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination among OB-GYN clinicians and trainees and interventions aimed at reducing harassment in OB-GYN and other surgical specialties., Evidence Review: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify studies published from inception through June 13, 2023.: For the prevalence of harassment, OB-GYN clinicians and trainees on OB-GYN rotations in all subspecialties in the US or Canada were included. Personal experiences of harassment (sexual harassment, bullying, abuse, and discrimination) by other health care personnel, event reporting, burnout and exit from medicine, fear of retaliation, and related outcomes were included. Interventions across all surgical specialties in any country to decrease incidence of harassment were also evaluated. Abstracts and potentially relevant full-text articles were double screened.: Eligible studies were extracted into standard forms. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence of included research were assessed. A meta-analysis was not performed owing to heterogeneity of outcomes., Findings: A total of 10 eligible studies among 5852 participants addressed prevalence and 12 eligible studies among 2906 participants addressed interventions. The prevalence of sexual harassment (range, 250 of 907 physicians [27.6%] to 181 of 255 female gynecologic oncologists [70.9%]), workplace discrimination (range, 142 of 249 gynecologic oncologists [57.0%] to 354 of 527 gynecologic oncologists [67.2%] among women; 138 of 358 gynecologic oncologists among males [38.5%]), and bullying (131 of 248 female gynecologic oncologists [52.8%]) was frequent among OB-GYN respondents. OB-GYN trainees commonly experienced sexual harassment (253 of 366 respondents [69.1%]), which included gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The proportion of OB-GYN clinicians who reported their sexual harassment to anyone ranged from 21 of 250 AAGL (formerly, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists) members (8.4%) to 32 of 256 gynecologic oncologists (12.5%) compared with 32.6% of OB-GYN trainees. Mistreatment during their OB-GYN rotation was indicated by 168 of 668 medical students surveyed (25.1%). Perpetrators of harassment included physicians (30.1%), other trainees (13.1%), and operating room staff (7.7%). Various interventions were used and studied, which were associated with improved recognition of bias and reporting (eg, implementation of a video- and discussion-based mistreatment program during a surgery clerkship was associated with a decrease in medical student mistreatment reports from 14 reports in previous year to 9 reports in the first year and 4 in the second year after implementation). However, no significant decrease in the frequency of sexual harassment was found with any intervention., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found high rates of harassment behaviors within OB-GYN. Interventions to limit these behaviors were not adequately studied, were limited mostly to medical students, and typically did not specifically address sexual or other forms of harassment.

Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Warner K. Huh reports receiving payment from Roche Diagnostics, Merck, and SeaGen. Fidel A. Valea reports receiving payment from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

The original vision of the field of gynecologic oncology was to establish a multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with gynecologic cancers. Fifty years later, scientific advances have markedly changed the overall practice of gynecologic oncology, but the profession continues to struggle to define its value-financial and otherwise. These issues were examined in full at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Future of the Profession Summit and the purpose of this document is to summarize the discussion, share the group's perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) for gynecologic oncologists, further educate members and others within the patient care team about the unique role of gynecologic oncologists, and plan future steps in the short- and long- term to preserve the subspecialty's critical mission of providing comprehensive, longitudinal care for people with gynecologic cancers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Huh reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, SeaGen and Inovio outside the submitted work. Dr. Hardesty reports personal fees from Immunogen, Axiom, GSK, Takeda, AZ-Mereck, and Intuitive outside the submitted work. Dr. Prendergast reports personal fees from Heron Therapeutics and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Rimel reports being an Advisory Board Participant for GSK, Merck, and Immunogen and a consultant for Deep 6AI. Dr. Shahin reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Merck, personal fees from Eisai, Immunogen, and GenMab during the conduct of the study. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Trainee well-being is a core component of ACGME program requirements and the SGO has recognized the high incidence of burnout among gynecologic oncologists and its negative impact. To foster a culture of wellness throughout the SGO community we sought to engage current fellows along with fellowship directors in a structured didactic program designed to teach wellness. We evaluated the feasibility of and preliminary responses to a pilot curriculum designed to teach skills that promote wellness and prevent burnout., Methods: The SGO Wellness Taskforce developed a curriculum with topics based on established evidence as well as specialty specific stressors such as end of life discussions. Faculty leaders from 15 pilot-sites attended a full-day training course and then taught four modules over four months. Interactive modules engaged fellows through reflective writing, guided discussion, and multimedia presentations. Fellows completed the Perceived Stress Scale pre- and post-implementation and provided feedback regarding attitudes toward wellness and the individual modules. Faculty curriculum leaders completed surveys regarding their attitudes toward the curriculum as well as their trainees' reactions., Results: Among 73 participating gynecologic oncology fellows, 95% (69/73) and 52/73 (71%) completed the pre-and post-surveys, respectively. Only 34/73 (49%) respondents reported that there was wellness programming at their institution prior to the initiation of the SGO curriculum. At institutions where such programming was available, 35% (12/34) reported not utilizing them. Fifty-five (80%) fellows had PSS scores greater than 12 compared to 39 (75%) post-intervention. After the curriculum, the percentage of fellows comfortable discussing wellness topics increased from 63 to 74%. Prior to the curriculum, 75% felt they could identify symptoms of burnout or psychosocial distress. This increased to 90% post-intervention. The modules were well received by fellows, and the time spent addressing wellness was widely appreciated., Conclusions: A structured curriculum to promote wellness among gynecologic oncology fellows is feasible and was associated with observed decreased reported stress among fellows at participating programs. This curriculum addresses ACGME requirements regarding trainee well-being, and showed potential for more programmatic, nationwide implementation. Fellowship culture change was not directly measured, but may have been one of the most significant positive outcomes of the wellness program. Further longitudinal studies will be necessary to understand the natural course of fellow burnout and the impact of structured wellness programming., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) increases survival in patients at high risk of developing ovarian cancer. While many general gynecologists perform this procedure, some argue it should be performed exclusively by specialists. In this retrospective observational study, we identified how often optimal techniques were used and whether surgeons' training impacted implementation., Methods: We used the ACOG guidelines highlighting various aspects of the procedure to determine which elements were consistent with best practices to maximize surgical prophylaxis. All cases of RRBSO from 2006 to 2010 were identified. We abstracted data from the operative and pathology reports to review the techniques employed. Fisher's exact test and chi-square were utilized to compare differences between groups (InStat, La Jolla, CA)., Results: Among 263 RRBSOs, 22 were performed by general gynecologists and 241 by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to perform pelvic washings-217/241 vs. 10/22 (p < .0001). They were more likely to include a description of the upper abdomen-220/241 vs. 12/22 (p < .0001). Oncologists were more likely to utilize a retroperitoneal approach to skeletonize the infundibulopelvic ligaments-157/241 vs. 3/22 (p < .0001). When operations were performed by oncologists, the specimens were more often completely sectioned-217/241 vs. 16/22 (p = .003). The use of a retroperitoneal approach among gynecologic oncologists increased over the study period (chi-square for trend, p < .0001). There was no visible trend in performance improvement in any other area when looking at either group., Conclusion: Gynecologic oncologists are more likely to adhere to best practice techniques when performing RRBSO, though there was room for improvement for both groups.

Physician wellness directly affects patient and physician health and has broader implications for our health systems. A summary of what is known about physician wellness in medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology in particular, identifies several areas for future focus. To change our culture and the structure of our academic health centers in a way that promotes resilience, we suggest greater attention to preparedness for practice and attention to work-life integration as well as mentoring and professional development.