Gender Differences in Patient Perceptions of Physicians' Communal Traits and the Impact on Physician Evaluations

Abstract

Background: Communal traits, such as empathy, warmth, and consensus-building, are not highly valued in the medical hierarchy. Devaluing communal traits is potentially harmful for two reasons. First, data suggest that patients may prefer when physicians show communal traits. Second, if female physicians are more likely to be perceived as communal, devaluing communal traits may increase the gender inequity already prevalent in medicine. We test for both these effects. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed 22,431 Press Ganey outpatient surveys assessing 480 physicians collected from 2016 to 2017 at a large tertiary hospital. The surveys asked patients to provide qualitative comments and quantitative Likert-scale ratings assessing physician effectiveness. We coded whether patients described physicians with “communal” language using a validated word scale derived from previous work. We used multivariate logistic regressions to assess whether (1) patients were more likely to describe female physicians using communal language and (2) patients gave higher quantitative ratings to physicians they described with communal language, when controlling for physician, patient, and comment characteristics. Results: Female physicians had higher odds of being described with communal language than male physicians (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.18–1.40, p < 0.001). In addition, patients gave higher quantitative ratings to physicians they described with communal language. These results were robust to inclusion of controls. Conclusions: Female physicians are more likely to be perceived as communal. Being perceived as communal is associated with higher quantitative ratings, including likelihood to recommend. Our study indicates a need to reevaluate what types of behaviors academic hospitals reward in their physicians.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.