Gender disparity and the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training in New Zealand ophthalmology
Résumé fourni par la source
AIM: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on New Zealand ophthalmology surgical training, focusing on surgical volume, case-mix, trainee involvement and gender disparities. METHODS: Analysis of logbook data for New Zealand based trainees of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO) from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2022 was conducted comparing trainee-involved and trainee-performed case volumes between pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) years, normalised by full-time equivalents (FTE). RESULTS: Analysis of 41,370 trainee-involved surgeries revealed that while the total number of trainee-involved procedures remained stable during the pandemic, trainee-performed surgeries decreased significantly by 11.8%. This was driven by a significant gender disparity (p=0.045), with a 24.9% decline for female trainees, concentrated among those in urban centres, while male trainee numbers remained stable (+0.74%). Provincial trainees performed twice as many surgeries as urban counterparts. A significant case-mix shift also occurred, with greater glaucoma (+27.6%) and fewer oculoplastic (-20.8%) surgeries. CONCLUSION: The pandemic was associated with a significant gender disparity in surgical training, driven by a reduction in procedures performed by female trainees predominantly in urban centres. The findings underscore the need to ensure equitable access to surgical training.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Gender disparity and the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training in New Zealand ophthalmology
- Date Crossref
- 19/09/2025
- Éditeur
- Pasifika Medical Association Group
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.