American journal of surgery · 2017
Pregnancy outcomes in female physicians in procedural versus non-procedural specialties.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scully Rebecca E, Stagg Amy R, Melnitchouk Nelya, Davids Jennifer S
Аннотация
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.
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.