Online biographies of gynecologic oncologists: Analysis of linguistic differences based on gender, graduation year, and region.

e17535 Background: Selecting a physician is a universal act for patients. This process has been reshaped by the digital transformation of healthcare. The widespread availability of online information has empowered patients with unprecedented access to data about potential providers. In response, physicians increasingly rely on online professional biographies as a means of engaging prospective patients. These biographies humanize providers and foster relatability for patients navigating healthcare choices. Our objective is to examine linguistic differences in online biographies of gynecologic oncologists across gender, geographic region, and year of graduation. Methods: A list of Gynecologic Oncology fellowship graduates from 2014-2024 was collected from the programs’ websites or requested from fellowship administrators. Their online biographical text was recorded in a spreadsheet, along with their gender, geographic region, and medical school graduation year. The texts were uploaded to Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software (LIWC-22), which is a validated software that parses text word-by-word to create “summary variables.” These variables describe broader psychologic dimensions of the text. The dependent linguistic variables measured included analytic language, emotional tone, clout, authenticity, and big words. RStudio was used to analyze the LIWC-22 output. A MANOVA, followed by Type I ANOVAs, were conducted to examine these linguistic differences across gender, graduation year, and region. Results: 124 bios were collected for analysis. Significant linguistic differences were found by geographic region, F(3, df ) = value , p < .05. Post hoc analyses revealed that oncologists in different regions significantly varied in their use of analytic language, emotional tone, and big words (all p < .05). The South region exhibited more analytic language than both the Northeast and Midwest, but less emotional language than all other regions. No significant differences were observed by gender or graduation year. Conclusions: Gynecologic oncologists of different genders or ages marketed their practice without significant linguistic variability. This finding deviates from multiple prior studies that noted significant linguistic divergence in other descriptors of male versus female healthcare providers (ie., LORs). Moreover, linguistic differences in biographies varied by region of the physician–particularly in tone, emotional language, and use of big words. With the knowledge that physicians tailor their online biographies to their prospective customers, we can conclude that there is geographic variability in how patients prefer their doctors discuss healthcare. As the digital presence of physicians grows, understanding how to optimize language in patient-facing materials will be increasingly important in patient-physician engagement.