gynecologists Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo32
, , , , To ascertain how screening for preterm birth is performed among obstetricians working in public and private practice in a middle-income country.
Cross-sectional study of 265 obstetrician-gynecologists employed at public and private facilities. An online questionnaire was administered, with items designed to collect data on prematurity screening and prevention practices.
The mean age of respondents was 44.5 years; 78.5% were female, and 97.7% had completed a medical residency program. Universal screening (i.e., by ultrasound measurement of cervical length) was carried out by only 11.3% of respondents in public practice; 43% request transvaginal ultrasound if the manual exam is abnormal, and 74.6% request it in pregnant women with risk factors for preterm birth. Conversely, 60.7% of respondents in private practice performed universal screening. This difference in screening practices between public and private practice was highly significant (p < 0.001). Nearly all respondents (90.6%) reported prescribing vaginal progesterone for short cervix.
In the setting of this study, universal ultrasound screening to prevent preterm birth was used by just over half of doctors in private practice. In public facilities, screening was even less common. Use of vaginal progesterone in cervical shortening was highly prevalent. There is an unmet need for formal protocols for screening and prevention of preterm birth in middle-income settings.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo32
, , , , To ascertain how screening for preterm birth is performed among obstetricians working in public and private practice in a middle-income country.
Cross-sectional study of 265 obstetrician-gynecologists employed at public and private facilities. An online questionnaire was administered, with items designed to collect data on prematurity screening and prevention practices.
The mean age of respondents was 44.5 years; 78.5% were female, and 97.7% had completed a medical residency program. Universal screening (i.e., by ultrasound measurement of cervical length) was carried out by only 11.3% of respondents in public practice; 43% request transvaginal ultrasound if the manual exam is abnormal, and 74.6% request it in pregnant women with risk factors for preterm birth. Conversely, 60.7% of respondents in private practice performed universal screening. This difference in screening practices between public and private practice was highly significant (p < 0.001). Nearly all respondents (90.6%) reported prescribing vaginal progesterone for short cervix.
In the setting of this study, universal ultrasound screening to prevent preterm birth was used by just over half of doctors in private practice. In public facilities, screening was even less common. Use of vaginal progesterone in cervical shortening was highly prevalent. There is an unmet need for formal protocols for screening and prevention of preterm birth in middle-income settings.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo25
, , , , , , , Fertility preservation is a priority in oncology for female cancer patients. However, there is a lack of communication between infertility specialists and oncologists. This study aimed to evaluate infertility specialists’ perceptions and experiences regarding fertility preservation.
Conduct an online survey to profile infertility specialists. Participants were infertility affiliated with the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO). The specialists received an online survey, which response rate were 30.9%, most of whom were in southern and southeastern. The survey consisted on 14 questions about the infertility specialists’ location, techniques in clinical practice, treatment successful rate, patients idea, etc.
The average experience in human reproduction were 15.5 ± 10.2 years (mean ± standard deviation, range 1-40). Among reproductive-aged female cancer patients recommended for fertility preservation, 60.3 ± 28.8% (range 10-100%) underwent preservation procedures. Main barriers were cost (41%), oncologists’ knowledge or acceptance (35%) and accessibility (9%). Most infertility specialists (58%) considered 40 years the limit for fertility preservation. Leukemia, lymphoma, breast and ovarian cancers were prioritized for fertility preservation, while lung, thyroid, gastric, and brain cancers were less relevant.
This is the first Brazilian study about infertility specialists’ perceptions on oncology patients access to fertility preservation. These patients primarily receive treatment in the public health system, while infertility specialists mainly work in the private healthcare. This healthcare mode is currently fragmented, but integrating these experts is enhancing patient access to fertility preservation. Studies on this topic are still warranted.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo25
, , , , , , , Fertility preservation is a priority in oncology for female cancer patients. However, there is a lack of communication between infertility specialists and oncologists. This study aimed to evaluate infertility specialists’ perceptions and experiences regarding fertility preservation.
Conduct an online survey to profile infertility specialists. Participants were infertility affiliated with the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO). The specialists received an online survey, which response rate were 30.9%, most of whom were in southern and southeastern. The survey consisted on 14 questions about the infertility specialists’ location, techniques in clinical practice, treatment successful rate, patients idea, etc.
The average experience in human reproduction were 15.5 ± 10.2 years (mean ± standard deviation, range 1-40). Among reproductive-aged female cancer patients recommended for fertility preservation, 60.3 ± 28.8% (range 10-100%) underwent preservation procedures. Main barriers were cost (41%), oncologists’ knowledge or acceptance (35%) and accessibility (9%). Most infertility specialists (58%) considered 40 years the limit for fertility preservation. Leukemia, lymphoma, breast and ovarian cancers were prioritized for fertility preservation, while lung, thyroid, gastric, and brain cancers were less relevant.
This is the first Brazilian study about infertility specialists’ perceptions on oncology patients access to fertility preservation. These patients primarily receive treatment in the public health system, while infertility specialists mainly work in the private healthcare. This healthcare mode is currently fragmented, but integrating these experts is enhancing patient access to fertility preservation. Studies on this topic are still warranted.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(6):394-399
The present study aims to obtain basic demographic information, the level of interest and of training in gynecology oncology among Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists (OB-GYNs) to create a professional profile.
An online questionnaire was sent to 16,008 gynecologists affiliated to the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FEBRASGO, in the Portuguese acronym). We considered gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology (OB-GYNs ONCO) those who self-reported that > 50% of their daily practice consists in working with women’s cancer care.
A total of 1,608 (10%) of 16,008 FEBRASGO members responded. The OBGYNs are concentrated in the southern and southeastern states of Brazil. Gynecologic oncology was considered the 8th greatest area of interest in gynecology among the OBGYNs. A total of 95 (5.9%) of the OB-GYNs were considered OB-GYNs ONCO. Obstetricians and gynecologists are actively engaged in cancer care: > 60% of them dedicate up to 25% of their daily practice to oncology. The role of the physicians in screening and prevention, diagnosis, in the treatment of precancerous lesions, and in low complexity surgical procedures is notably high. Gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology in Brazil have a heterogeneous, nonstandardized and short training period in gynecologic oncology. These professionals had a more significantly role in performing medium- and high-complexity operations compared with OB-GYNs (65.2% versus 34%, and 47.3% versus 8.4%, respectively).
The role of OB-GYNs and of OB-GYNs ONCO appears to be complementary. Obstetricians and gynecologists actmore often in screening and prevention and in low-complexity surgical procedures, whereas OB-GYNs ONCO are more involved in highly complex cases. Strategies to raise standards in cancer training and to encourage the recognition of gynecologic oncology as a subspecialty should be adopted in Brazil.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(6):394-399
The present study aims to obtain basic demographic information, the level of interest and of training in gynecology oncology among Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists (OB-GYNs) to create a professional profile.
An online questionnaire was sent to 16,008 gynecologists affiliated to the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FEBRASGO, in the Portuguese acronym). We considered gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology (OB-GYNs ONCO) those who self-reported that > 50% of their daily practice consists in working with women’s cancer care.
A total of 1,608 (10%) of 16,008 FEBRASGO members responded. The OBGYNs are concentrated in the southern and southeastern states of Brazil. Gynecologic oncology was considered the 8th greatest area of interest in gynecology among the OBGYNs. A total of 95 (5.9%) of the OB-GYNs were considered OB-GYNs ONCO. Obstetricians and gynecologists are actively engaged in cancer care: > 60% of them dedicate up to 25% of their daily practice to oncology. The role of the physicians in screening and prevention, diagnosis, in the treatment of precancerous lesions, and in low complexity surgical procedures is notably high. Gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology in Brazil have a heterogeneous, nonstandardized and short training period in gynecologic oncology. These professionals had a more significantly role in performing medium- and high-complexity operations compared with OB-GYNs (65.2% versus 34%, and 47.3% versus 8.4%, respectively).
The role of OB-GYNs and of OB-GYNs ONCO appears to be complementary. Obstetricians and gynecologists actmore often in screening and prevention and in low-complexity surgical procedures, whereas OB-GYNs ONCO are more involved in highly complex cases. Strategies to raise standards in cancer training and to encourage the recognition of gynecologic oncology as a subspecialty should be adopted in Brazil.
