The Perception of Physicians on Gender-Specific Differences in the Diagnosis of COPD: Results from a Questionnaire-Based Survey

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the perception of physicians on gender-specific differences in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using a qualitative and anonymous questionnaire-based survey.

Methods

The survey was conducted amongst respiratory physicians attending a standalone educational conference (29–30 September 2017) using the SpotMe^® App. The 20-item standardized closed questionnaire had pre-coded responses to questions on physician’s profile, and perception of COPD diagnosis and existing comorbidities between genders. All the responses were recorded anonymously.

Results

Of 368 physicians who downloaded the SpotMe^® App and had access to the survey, 132 (35.9%) completed the survey. Respondents were predominantly hospital-based (57.3%), aged 30–49 years (54.2%), male (56.5%), and from large cities (59.5%). 68.7% of physicians perceived the prevalence of COPD to be higher in men; over 50% of physicians perceived that women were more prone to the effects of smoking. More than 60% of physicians agreed that women experience more severe symptoms (anxiety and depression) and have reduced quality of life than men. Over 50% of physicians agreed that misdiagnosis/underdiagnosis of COPD in women was an important factor for gender-differences.

Conclusion

Results from this survey indicate that the understanding of COPD burden in women varies among healthcare professionals.

Keywords:

• comorbidity
• COPD
• gender difference
• physician perception
• gender bias

Abbreviations

COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CS, corticosteroids; GOLD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease; QoL, quality of life.

Data Sharing Statement

Novartis is committed to sharing access to patient-level data and supporting documents from eligible studies with qualified external researchers. These requests are reviewed and approved by an independent review panel on the basis of scientific merit. All data provided are anonymized to respect the privacy of patients who have participated in the trial in line with applicable laws and regulations.

Consent for Publication

The current study did not involve recruitment of study subjects; hence exempted from institutional review board or ethics committee approval.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mohammed Najeeb Ashraf, B. Anupama, and Shaik AS (Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. India) for providing medical writing support/editorial support, which was funded by Novartis, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3). Dave Singh thanks the support received from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Manchester, United Kingdom.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to data analysis, drafting or revising the article, have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

Dr. Raherison-Semjen reports grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, outside the submitted work. K. Mezzi is an employee of Novartis; KK was an employee of Novartis Pharma AG at the time of the conduct of this analysis and has received honoraria for presentations and/or consulting services from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Sanofi, NuvoAir, and Novartis, not related to this work. KK is also a member of the GOLD Assembly. AJM was a European Respiratory Society Fellow in Industry at Novartis Pharma AG at the time of conduct of this study and is currently employed and hold shares of AstraZeneca; Dr. Singh reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Cipla, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Glenmark, personal fees from Gossamerbio, personal fees from Menarini, personal fees from Mundipharma, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Peptinnovate, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Pulmatrix, personal fees from Theravance, personal fees from Verona, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Additional information

Funding

The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.