Abstract
Background: Patients' preferences towards their physicians constitute a crucial part of providing patient-centered care. Gender preference of patients towards gynecologists/obstetricians is controversial.
Objective: The authors aimed to develop and validate a scale that specifically assesses the gender preferences of patients toward physicians in the obstetrics and gynecology field.
Materials and Methods: This epidemiological cross-sectional study was conducted on 1192 participants in Lebanon. The questionnaire used consisted of two parts; the first part was related to sociodemographic questions and obstetrics and gynecology specialists’ overview, and the second part was divided into males' and females' perceptions of gynecologists. The newly developed GPGO scale, consisting of 13 items, was only intended for females. Statistical analysis was performed to test the internal reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity. Overall, there were 1192 respondents, 890 females and 302 males. In this study, we only included females’ responses.
Results: Tests of assumptions of sample adequacy showed communalities higher than 0.3. Factor analysis of the 13 items in the GPGO scale revealed two main components. Items were adequately loaded into each component. The scale’s Cronbach alpha indicated internal reliability to be good (0.861); component 1 had acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.745), while component 2 had high internal reliability (Cronbach alpha = 0.846). Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.877 (p<0.0001) and 0.898 (p<0.0001), respectively. Therefore, the scale showed adequate convergent validity.
Conclusion: The resulting GPGO scale, which assesses the preference of patients towards gynecologists and obstetricians, is validated for use in females aged 18 years old and higher. The scale can be used in future studies for comparison or prospective follow-up.
Keywords: Gynecologists, obstetricians, females, gender preference, scale, physicians.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0046958017709688] [PMID: 28578608]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.13.5.384] [PMID: 7805632]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123401] [PMID: 12015516]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.034] [PMID: 22819711]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J013v30n03_04] [PMID: 10943802]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2005.105.8.369] [PMID: 16166391]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15028] [PMID: 34136321]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000483829.97196.8f]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp044] [PMID: 19497943]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200210001-00019] [PMID: 12377706]