Preferences for physician sex among adults attending Syrian public teaching hospitals: A multicenter cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Physician sex can influence communication, comfort, and care-seeking. Evidence from conservative contexts suggests preferences are strongest in intimate examinations and vary by specialty. Local data from Syria are limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional survey in major Syrian public teaching hospitals. Adults attending participating hospitals, including patients and accompanying companions, completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from prior work and reviewed for clarity in Arabic, capturing preference for physician sex (male, female, no preference) across (i) attitudinal domains, (ii) common clinical interactions (e.g., history taking, general and intimate examinations, emergencies, procedures), and (iii) medical specialties. Demographics included age, participant sex, marital status, education, religion, religiosity, and income. Associations were assessed using chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression with "no preference" as the reference category. RESULTS: Across attitudinal domains and routine interactions, many participants reported no preference. In sensitive contexts, particularly intimate examinations, sex-concordant care was frequently preferred. Female participants tended to prefer female physicians for intimate and reproductive health encounters, whereas male participants more often preferred male physicians for general and intimate examinations. By specialty, preference for male physicians was more common in surgery-related fields (e.g., general surgery, orthopedics, urology), while preference for female physicians predominated in obstetrics/gynecology and select relational specialties (e.g., psychiatry, dermatology). In emergency or life-threatening scenarios, neutrality was common. Exploratory adjusted analyses identified several demographic associations, with participant sex showing the most consistent pattern across multiple contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for physician sex among adults attending Syrian public teaching hospitals were context-dependent, peaking in intimate examinations and varying by specialty. Ensuring feasible options for sex-concordant care in selected services, alongside communication training for all clinicians, may improve comfort and engagement among hospital attendees. Future research should evaluate how these preferences affect care utilization and outcomes, and explore clinician factors (e.g., seniority, communication style) that may mitigate or amplify preference effects.