Purpose To better understand why interventional radiologists and gynecologists differ in their approaches to symptomatic uterine fibroids. Methods Conversational interviews were conducted with 26 interventional radiologists and gynecologists about their professional roles, clinical reasoning, and practice variation within and outside their specialty. Interview transcripts were systematically analyzed using NVivo 10 software (QSR International, Burlington, Massachusetts) according to grounded theory and content analysis to identify key themes and compare themes across specialties and practice environments. Data were supplemented with retrospective analysis of 7,659 patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids treated at a large academic center over 11 years. Results Interventional radiologists’ shares of symptomatic uterine fibroid treatment and endovascular stent treatments have remained constant (P >.05) for 11 y at a large medical center, whereas minimally invasive gynecologic fibroid treatments and the percentage of interventional radiology (IR) procedures reimbursed by Medicaid/Medicare have increased significantly (r >.90, P <.001 and r =.93, P <.001). Interventional radiologists and gynecologists shared a commitment to do “the right thing” for patients, but each group possessed distinct professional values affecting how they viewed medical evidence, outcomes, and their colleagues. When differences were apparent and concerning, physicians tended to suspect ulterior motives not in patients’ best interests. Conclusions Interventional radiologists and gynecologists demonstrated wide-ranging perspectives regarding their role in caring for patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids. To promote genuine collaboration and adoption of shared goals, stakeholders should seek and promote a deeper understanding of specialty-specific values and culture.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine