Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

Susan J. Méndez; Anthony Scott; Yuting Zhang

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886

Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

Susan J. Méndez, Anthony Scott, Yuting Zhang

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Physician adoption of new technologies is a key issue for population health and the sustainability of the healthcare system. This paper explores gender differences in general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of new oral anticoagulants. We combine detailed individual data on physician and practice style characteristics from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of Australian physicians with administrative prescribing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for the period January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. After adjusting for various factors proposed in the literature as drivers of this gender gap, in addition to risk preferences and personality traits, we find a large statistical gender difference in the speed of adoption with men being faster than women in uptake. However, conditional on having prescribed for the first time, female and male GPs differ only slightly in the intensity of use of these new drugs. We show that the gender gap depends on the measure of uptake and discuss possible channels that could be driving the relatively large gender difference that remains in the speed of adoption.

Original language	English
Article number	113886
Number of pages	15
Journal	Social Science & Medicine
Volume	277
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886
Publication status	Published - May 2021
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Australia
Gender
Innovation
Pharmaceuticals
Primary care

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886

Cite this

@article{d0e63ba06dc94542bbe6830e2a7e6251,

title = "Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs",

abstract = "Physician adoption of new technologies is a key issue for population health and the sustainability of the healthcare system. This paper explores gender differences in general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of new oral anticoagulants. We combine detailed individual data on physician and practice style characteristics from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of Australian physicians with administrative prescribing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for the period January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. After adjusting for various factors proposed in the literature as drivers of this gender gap, in addition to risk preferences and personality traits, we find a large statistical gender difference in the speed of adoption with men being faster than women in uptake. However, conditional on having prescribed for the first time, female and male GPs differ only slightly in the intensity of use of these new drugs. We show that the gender gap depends on the measure of uptake and discuss possible channels that could be driving the relatively large gender difference that remains in the speed of adoption.",

keywords = "Australia, Gender, Innovation, Pharmaceuticals, Primary care",

author = "M{\'e}ndez, {Susan J.} and Anthony Scott and Yuting Zhang",

note = "Funding Information: This research used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007–2016: 454799 and 1019605); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation, the NSW Department of Health, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2017); and the Australian Government Department of Health, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2018). The study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102–2007000291).Financial support from the Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship (Y. Zhang) and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics research grant (S. M{\'e}ndez) is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: Financial support from the Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship (Y. Zhang) and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics research grant (S. M{\'e}ndez) is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: This research used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council ( 2007–2016: 454799 and 1019605 ); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing ( 2008 ); Health Workforce Australia ( 2013 ); The University of Melbourne , Medibank Better Health Foundation , the NSW Department of Health , and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services ( 2017 ); and the Australian Government Department of Health , the Australian Digital Health Agency , and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services ( 2018 ). The study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559 ) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102–2007000291 ). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2021",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886",

language = "English",

volume = "277",

journal = "Social Science & Medicine",

issn = "0277-9536",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

AU - Méndez, Susan J.

AU - Scott, Anthony

AU - Zhang, Yuting

N1 - Funding Information: This research used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007–2016: 454799 and 1019605); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation, the NSW Department of Health, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2017); and the Australian Government Department of Health, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2018). The study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102–2007000291).Financial support from the Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship (Y. Zhang) and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics research grant (S. Méndez) is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: Financial support from the Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship (Y. Zhang) and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics research grant (S. Méndez) is gratefully acknowledged. Funding Information: This research used data from the MABEL longitudinal survey of doctors. Funding for MABEL was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council ( 2007–2016: 454799 and 1019605 ); the Australian Department of Health and Ageing ( 2008 ); Health Workforce Australia ( 2013 ); The University of Melbourne , Medibank Better Health Foundation , the NSW Department of Health , and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services ( 2017 ); and the Australian Government Department of Health , the Australian Digital Health Agency , and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services ( 2018 ). The study was approved by The University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics Human Ethics Advisory Group (Ref. 0709559 ) and the Monash University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans (Ref: 195535 CF07/1102–2007000291 ). Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2021/5

Y1 - 2021/5

N2 - Physician adoption of new technologies is a key issue for population health and the sustainability of the healthcare system. This paper explores gender differences in general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of new oral anticoagulants. We combine detailed individual data on physician and practice style characteristics from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of Australian physicians with administrative prescribing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for the period January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. After adjusting for various factors proposed in the literature as drivers of this gender gap, in addition to risk preferences and personality traits, we find a large statistical gender difference in the speed of adoption with men being faster than women in uptake. However, conditional on having prescribed for the first time, female and male GPs differ only slightly in the intensity of use of these new drugs. We show that the gender gap depends on the measure of uptake and discuss possible channels that could be driving the relatively large gender difference that remains in the speed of adoption.

AB - Physician adoption of new technologies is a key issue for population health and the sustainability of the healthcare system. This paper explores gender differences in general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of new oral anticoagulants. We combine detailed individual data on physician and practice style characteristics from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of Australian physicians with administrative prescribing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for the period January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. After adjusting for various factors proposed in the literature as drivers of this gender gap, in addition to risk preferences and personality traits, we find a large statistical gender difference in the speed of adoption with men being faster than women in uptake. However, conditional on having prescribed for the first time, female and male GPs differ only slightly in the intensity of use of these new drugs. We show that the gender gap depends on the measure of uptake and discuss possible channels that could be driving the relatively large gender difference that remains in the speed of adoption.

KW - Australia

KW - Gender

KW - Innovation

KW - Pharmaceuticals

KW - Primary care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104437793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113886

M3 - Article

C2 - 33882439

AN - SCOPUS:85104437793

SN - 0277-9536

VL - 277

JO - Social Science & Medicine

JF - Social Science & Medicine

M1 - 113886

ER -

Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Centre of Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics

Understanding the dynamics of the medical workforce to improve population health and equity of access: the Australian longitudinal survey of doctors

Cite this

Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Projects

Centre of Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics

Understanding the dynamics of the medical workforce to improve population health and equity of access: the Australian longitudinal survey of doctors

Cite this