Hospital patients treated by female physicians have better outcomes

Patients cared for by female physicians in hospital were less likely to die or be readmitted compared with those treated by male physicians, according to a new ICES study, led by a University of Toronto researcher. This suggests that female physician sex may be associated with better short- and long-term outcomes among medical patients hospitalized with common medical diagnoses.

"Past research has largely focused on surgical patients and the admitting physician only. Our findings add to the growing body of research examining the relationship between physician sex and patient outcomes, broadening the evidence beyond surgical care to a wider range of medical conditions and other physicians," says Dr. Angela Jerath, an ICES scientist, and Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine at the University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine.

The study analyzed ICES data on 958,150 adults hospitalized for one of seven common medical diagnoses, such as acute myocardial infarction and pneumonia, between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2022.

Of the patients, 259,759 were treated by female physicians and 698,391 by male physicians. As care may transfer between multiple physicians during a hospital stay, the researchers examined whether patient outcomes varied according to the sex of the most responsible physician and the extent to which patients received care from female physicians during their hospital stay.

Patients cared for by female physicians had a lower 30-day mortality compared to those cared for by male physicians (12.3 per cent vs. 13.7 per cent), as well as a slightly lower hospital readmission rate (18.6 per cent vs. 18.9 per cent). Greater exposure to care from female physicians during hospitalization was also associated with seven per cent lower odds of dying within 30 days. Similar patterns were observed at 90 days and one year.

A possible explanation for this difference is that female physicians may engage in more patient-centred communication and spend more time with patients. Furthermore, female physicians may be more likely to order guideline-directed treatments, consult colleagues, and share decision-making.

"The goal is not to favour one group of physicians over another but to identify practices and behaviours that may help improve care across the health system," says Jerath. "An important strength of this study is that, unlike surgical care, patients admitted to hospital for medical conditions are generally assigned physicians based on rotating schedules rather than patient or referring physician preferences, helping to minimize referral bias."

The researchers recommend further research to determine whether clinical care differs by physician sex and whether these findings can be extended to other settings locally and in other countries.

The study "Physician sex and outcomes among hospitalized patients" is in the October issue of JAMA Network Open.

Source:

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences

Journal reference:

DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026/41487

Posted in: Medical Research News | Healthcare News

Comments (2)

Download PDF Copy

Comments

Not ment to be bias or sexist but is..

Jay Vaughn-Lee says:

October 31, 2026 at 10:52 AM

The recent article highlighting the ICES/University of Toronto study published in JAMA Network Open claims that hospital patients treated by female physicians experience lower mortality and readmission rates. The author frames this finding as a definitive insight into physician capability, complete with speculation regarding gendered communication and empathy. However, a rigorous analysis of the study’s own parameters reveals that the conclusion relies on a deeply flawed, unequal, and unscientific methodology.
When stripped of its public relations wrapping, the study's core claim collapses under three major structural distortions:
1. The Rigged Baseline (The Workload Disparity)
The study tracks 958,150 adult patients, but the distribution is drastically uneven: 698,391 patients were treated by male physicians, while only 259,759 were treated by female physicians. This nearly 3-to-1 volume imbalance means the male cohort carried a crushing operational load. In any professional environment, carrying triple the volume introduces severe systemic pressures, faster turnover, and acute fatigue. By failing to isolate and subtract the direct impact of raw workload volume from patient outcomes, the study penalizes the very group managing the weight of the hospital system, rendering the final comparison inherently unequal.
2. The Attribution Fallacy (The Erasure of Teamwork)
In everyday hospital logistics, patient care is fundamentally team-based, collaborative, and fluid. Over a standard hospital stay, care routinely transfers across multiple doctors, nurses, and specialists during rotating shifts and weekends. The study admits this logistical reality but bypasses it entirely by choosing to attribute the final outcome solely to the demographic label of the "most responsible physician." This is an arbitrary statistical shortcut. Forcing a rigid demographic correlation onto a highly collaborative environment means individual, group-wide hard work is erased simply to credit or blame a single physician's demographic category.
3. The 14-Year Temporal Distortion (The Technology Gap)
The dataset spans from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2022. Over this 14-year period, healthcare underwent massive systemic evolutions, including revamped electronic health record tracking, updated clinical guidelines, and changes in medical school demographics. By crushing nearly a decade and a half of rapidly changing history into a single average, the study creates a massive historical confound. Because younger generations of doctors entering these highly evolved, technologically advanced, and safer modern hospital systems are disproportionately female compared to older generations, the 1.4% gap (12.3% vs. 13.7%) is highly likely a reflection of the era of training and hospital advancement, not an inherent gender trait.
4. Statistical Inflation (Relative vs. Absolute Risk)
To make a microscopic administrative variance look like a monumental breakthrough, the article utilizes a classic statistical manipulation: relative risk reduction. It highlights a "seven per cent lower odds of dying" headline. However, looking at the actual raw data provided, the absolute difference in mortality is a mere 1.4% (12.3% vs. 13.7%), and the absolute difference in readmission rates is an completely negligible 0.3% (18.6% vs. 18.9%). Amplifying fractional data point fluctuations to generate sensationalist headlines is a disingenuous tactic designed for click-driven engagement rather than objective reporting.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this article abandons objective medical science in favor of ideological cheerleading. The researchers openly admit their explanations are pure speculation, using words like "possible" and "may" to invent a flattering psychological narrative about a messy database anomaly. True medical competence is an individual trait defined by personal skill, meticulous diagnosis, and clinical dedication. Reducing the grueling, high-stakes efforts of thousands of individual medical professionals down to loose guidelines and sweeping, gender-based generalizations isn't research—it is bias masquerading as fact

0 0

Reply
Interesting Questions

Russ Pietz says:

October 31, 2026 at 12:56 PM

What is the purpose of this study? In a time where we don't have enough physician providers why question which sex provides superior care. There are great and poor male and female docs. This study is retrospective and the exclusion criteria needs to be closely evaluated. If you wish to answer this question in this day and age with hospitalists and shifts affecting the patient care, you won't be able to separate cares. How foolish and misguided. Wonder what the true underlying purpose to place this in the "scientific" literature is? I am discouraged by what we are spending our research resources on these days.

0 0

Reply