Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Sex and Gender in Preparatory Material for National Medical Examination in Germany and the United States.
Schluchter, Helena; Nauman, Ahmad T; Ludwig, Sabine; Regitz-Zagrosek, Vera; Seeland, Ute.
Afiliação
  • Schluchter H; Institute of Gender in Medicine (GiM), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
  • Nauman AT; Institute of Gender in Medicine (GiM), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
  • Ludwig S; Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
  • Regitz-Zagrosek V; Institute of Gender in Medicine (GiM), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
  • Seeland U; Center for Cardiovascular Research (CCR), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
J Med Educ Curric Dev ; 7: 2382120519894253, 2020.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32363236
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) should be a mandatory part of medical education. We compared the quantity and quality of sex- and gender-related content of e-learning materials commonly used by German and American medical students while preparing for national medical examinations.

METHODS:

Quantitative, line-by-line analysis of the preparatory materials AMBOSS 2017 and USMLE Step 1 Lecture Notes (2017) by KAPLAN MEDICAL was performed between April and October 2017. Subjects were allocated to one of the three main fields clinical subjects, behavioral and social science, and pharmacology. Qualitative analysis comprised binary categorization into sex- and gender-based aspects and qualification with respect to the presence of a pathophysiological explanation for the sex or gender difference.

RESULTS:

In relation to the total content of AMBOSS and KAPLAN, the sex- and gender-based share of the clinical subjects content was 26.8% (±8.2) in AMBOSS and 21.1% (±10.2) in KAPLAN. The number of sex- and gender-based aspects in the behavioral and social science learning material differed significantly for AMBOSS and KAPLAN (4.4% ± 3.1% vs 10.7% ± 7.5%; P = .044). Most of the sex- and gender-related content covered sex differences. Most learning cards and texts did not include a detailed pathophysiological explanation for sex- or gender-based aspects. The knowledge provided in the preparatory documents represents only a small part of facts that are already known about sex and gender differences.

CONCLUSIONS:

The preparatory materials focused almost exclusively on biological sex differences and the sociocultural dimension in particular is underrepresented. A lot more evidence-based facts are known and should be integrated into the materials to reflect the importance of SGBM as an integral component of patient-centered medicine.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article