Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Sex and Gender in Preparatory Material for National Medical Examination in Germany and the United States.
Sex- and gender-based medicine
e-learning
learning material
medical education
national medical examination
sex differences
Journal
Journal of medical education and curricular development
ISSN: 2382-1205
Titre abrégé: J Med Educ Curric Dev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101690298
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
27
10
2019
accepted:
29
10
2019
entrez:
5
5
2020
pubmed:
5
5
2020
medline:
5
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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: 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%; 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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:
RESULTS
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%;
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32363236
doi: 10.1177/2382120519894253
pii: 10.1177_2382120519894253
pmc: PMC7180954
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2382120519894253Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests:The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2009 Apr;296(4):R1258-67
pubmed: 19158408
Circulation. 2017 Mar 14;135(11):1075-1092
pubmed: 28289007
Clin Res Cardiol. 2015 Apr;104(4):342-50
pubmed: 25398254
Lancet. 2014 Jun 7;383(9933):1973-80
pubmed: 24613026
Stroke. 2003 May;34(5):1114-9
pubmed: 12690218
Biosci Rep. 2016 Oct 27;36(5):
pubmed: 27653526
Neuroepidemiology. 2005;24(3):123-8
pubmed: 15637449
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 1):341-53
pubmed: 19622996
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(29):e4272
pubmed: 27442661
Health Care Women Int. 2013;34(1):3-13
pubmed: 23216093
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177
pubmed: 28886621
Psychosom Med. 2015 Jun;77(5):517-26
pubmed: 25984818
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2012;(214):3-22
pubmed: 23027443
Immunology. 2019 Jan;156(1):9-22
pubmed: 30222193
Dig Liver Dis. 2017 May;49(5):540-544
pubmed: 28110921
JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Jun;7(6):505-515
pubmed: 31146874
Endocr Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):43-50
pubmed: 30383487
Europace. 2016 Nov;18(11):1609-1678
pubmed: 27567465
Health Educ Behav. 2006 Dec;33(6):731-43; discussion 744-6
pubmed: 16740509
Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 Jul;21(7):827-843
pubmed: 31243866
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Dec 7;141(11):858-65
pubmed: 15583228
JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Mar;7(3):228-238
pubmed: 30819379
Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Oct 14;7(Suppl 1):40
pubmed: 27785343
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jun 28;67(25):2996-3010
pubmed: 27339497
Br Med Bull. 2011;99:39-51
pubmed: 21893493
Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Oct 14;7(Suppl 1):44
pubmed: 27785346
Semin Immunopathol. 2019 Mar;41(2):177-188
pubmed: 30361800
Am Heart J. 2012 Jul;164(1):66-71.e1
pubmed: 22795284
Biol Sex Differ. 2018 Apr 18;9(1):15
pubmed: 29669571
Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Oct;20(10):1392-1400
pubmed: 29862606
Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Oct 14;7(Suppl 1):39
pubmed: 27785342
Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Oct 14;7(Suppl 1):45
pubmed: 27785347
EMBO Rep. 2012 Jun 29;13(7):596-603
pubmed: 22699937
Int J Equity Health. 2009 May 06;8:14
pubmed: 19419579
Acad Med. 2006 May;81(5):476-82
pubmed: 16639208