Does diversity go beyond sex and gender? Gender as social category of diversity training in health profession education - a scoping review.

Background: Sex and gender are social categories of diversity. Diversity can be perceived with an intersectional framework as it demonstrates the intersecting categories that might contribute to oppression, inequality, power and privilege. This article focused on what aspects were considered in diversity training programmes for health professions and the role of sex/gender in this context. Method: This scoping review focuses on the social categories mentioned in diversity education of health professionals. Articles on diversity training for health professionals were searched for in the Web of Science database using the keywords gender, diversity, training, education and health professions. Twelve articles were finally included in this review. Thematic analysis was employed to summarise information deduced from articles. Findings: Gaps in the aspects included in diversity training were identified. Findings show that culture was mostly discussed, whereas sex/gender and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) were focused on only to a minor extent. Cultural diversity training includes self-reflection on one's own culture, whereas a comparable tool for sex/gender and LGBTQI is missing. Additionally, other social categories of diversity, such as disability or age, are largely absent. Conclusion: Diversity should be incorporated in its full breadth in health profession education and not fragmented. Additionally, other social categories such as gender might benefit from including self-reflection on these categories in addition to reflecting on the role of power and privilege in order to increase self-awareness for diversity. In this way, othering of the population might be prevented and healthcare can be improved for all.

Gender differences and similarities in medical students' experiences of mistreatment by various groups of perpetrators.

BACKGROUND: Mistreatment of medical students during medical education is a widespread concern. Studies have shown that medical students report the most mistreatment compared to students of other study programs and that the prevalence of mistreatment peaks during clinical training. For this reason, a study was conducted to assess prevalence of mistreatment among medical students committed by various groups of people. The focus was to identify whether gender was associated with the experience of mistreatment. Additionally, students' perception of university climate for reporting sexual harassment was assessed. METHOD: In the study 88 medical students (45 women, 43 men) participated. A modified version of the Questionnaire on Student Abuse was used to assess students' experience of various types of mistreatment and associated distress during medical education. To explore factors that could be associated with this experience the organizational climate for reporting sexual harassment was assessed with the Psychological Climate for Sexual Harassment. RESULT: The most often cited perpetrators of mistreatment were strangers (79.5%), friends (75.0%) and university staff (68.2%). Strangers mostly committed psychological mistreatment and sexual harassment, whereas friends additionally engaged in physical mistreatment of medical students. The most common form of mistreatment conducted by university staff was humiliation of students. These kinds of psychological mistreatment were reported to be distressing (43%). Gender differences were found in the prevalence of mistreatment. Women experienced more sexual harassment and humiliation than did men. On the other hand, men experienced more physical mistreatment than did women. Women reported experiencing more distress from mistreatment experiences than did men and also more often reported being mistreated by university staff than did men. Women perceived a greater risk in reporting sexual harassment to the organization than did men. CONCLUSION: Mistreatment of female and male students should be focused on using a gender perspective because types of mistreatment can differ by gender. Additionally, interventions should include the societal level as there was a high prevalence of mistreatment perpetrated by strangers. Also the issue of trust in the university needs to be addressed and the organization is called on to visibly demonstrate that it represents and protects its students as well as its staff.