| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5731200 | The American Journal of Surgery | 2017 | 5 Pages |
BackgroundProcedural 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.MethodsData from 1559 US attending female physician mothers was gathered via an anonymous, IRB-approved online survey.ResultsOf 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%, PÂ =Â 0.2), missing work during pregnancy (28.2% vs 24.5%, PÂ =Â 0.13), cesarean delivery rate (36.0% vs 34.5%, PÂ =Â 0.61), and missed work due to preterm labor (12.3% vs 12.5%, PÂ =Â 0.91) were similar between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough 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.
