Foundations for a novel emergency medicine subspecialty: sex, gender, and women's health

Educating the Scientific Workforce on Sex and Gender Considerations in Research: A National Scan of the Literature and Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Programs

Background: This study was a national scan of education resources on integrating sex and gender considerations into research. The purpose was to assess capacity for educating researchers and to identify gaps, with implications for implementation of guidelines or mandates to consider sex and gender differences in research. Information sources were U.S. training programs in women's health and sex/gender difference research, Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH), and published peer-reviewed biomedical literature. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study used multiple methods: a national survey and a comprehensive literature review. BIRCWH leaders responded to a survey regarding education on sex/gender difference research for BIRCWH scholars (response rate 100%, 20 of 20). A comprehensive literature review was conducted for 1993-2018. Results: Nearly half (45%) of BIRCWH institutions offered education on integrating sex or gender differences in clinical translational research; of those, roughly half (54%) offered in-person training and one-third (31%) offered content within existing for-credit courses. Respondents preferred online training (84%) to in-person offerings or reference materials (47% and 42% respectively). Published indexed literature on sex or gender differences has quadrupled since 1993, although growth in these publications remained flat in the most recent six years. Conclusions: Published resources to educate researchers on integrating sex and gender differences into medical research have increased, and BIRCWH programs connect scholars to national resources. Educational gaps remain due to limited access to curricula on applied research approaches, design, and methods for sex/gender difference research. BIRCWH programs desire curricula that are easily accessible online and asynchronously; sanctioned and supported by national thought leaders; linked to required training such as rigor and reproducibility; foster collaboration; and offer practical applications. Evidence-based, high-quality educational curricula and a dissemination plan are needed to enhance the adoption and integration of sex and gender into scientific endeavors.

Sex and gender in medical education: a national student survey

BACKGROUND

Gender- and sex-specific medicine is defined as the practice of medicine based on the understanding that biology (dictated by sex chromosomes) and social roles (gender) are important in and have implications for prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment in men and women. In light of the many ways that sex and gender influence disease presentation and patient management, there have been various initiatives to improve the integration of these topics into medical education curriculum. Although certain schools may include the topics, their impact on the student body's knowledge has not been as fully studied. By studying the opinions of US allopathic and osteopathic-enrolled students on the extent to which their schools address these topics and their understanding of these topics, this study examined the role of gender specific medicine in the US medical school curriculum.

METHODS

An email solicitation with link to an anonymous survey was sent to approximately 35,876 student members of five US medical student organizations. The survey instrument consisted of yes/no, multiple choice, and attitude awareness questions. Data was analyzed as a complete data set to evaluate national trends and via subset analysis using chi-square, paired t test, and one-way anova.

RESULTS

A total of 1097 students responded. The majority of respondents strongly agreed that sex and gender medicine (SGBM) improves patient management (96.0 %) and should be included as a part of the medical school curriculum (94.4 %). Only 2.4 % of participants agreed that SGBM is the same as Women's Health. When asked specifically about inclusion of an identified sex and gender-based medicine curriculum at their institution, students answered not sure at 40.8, 25.1, 19.1, and 20.3 % from first year to fourth year, respectively. Males reported a higher rate of exposure to SGBM content areas (in medical history taking, domestic violence) than women.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students recognize the differentiation between SGBM principles and women's health, and understand the translational value of sex and gender-specific principles in the clinical setting. However, current curricular offerings fall short of providing students with adequate coverage of specific evidence-based health differences.

Workshop summaries from the 2015 Sex and Gender Medical Education Summit: utilization of sex and gender based medical education resources and creating student competencies

BACKGROUND

Despite overwhelming evidence that sex and gender are critical factors in the delivery and practice of medicine, there is no unified sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) undergraduate medical education curriculum. Two Workshops within the 2015 Sex and Gender Medical Education Summit: a Roadmap to Curricular Innovation sought to lay the framework for such a curriculum.

METHODS

Attendees to the Sex and Gender Educational Summit self-selected attendance for one of two Workshops: (A) Utilization of SGBM Resources in U.S. Medical Schools or (B) Creating SGBM Student Competencies.

RESULTS

Workshop A identified gaps in existing curricula as well as strategies for incorporating available SGBM content into existing educational activities or curricular threads. Focus was given to the use of advisory committees to nurture collaboration and sharing of resources. Workshop B created a framework for national SGBM competencies by adapting existing materials from women's health curricula such as Brown University's SGBM Emergency Medicine subspecialty. The importance of student engagement, assessment, and faculty development were stressed as well as engaging the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) in awareness of the vital nature of including SGBM content into all medical school curricula.

CONCLUSION

These Workshops provided a forum for national and international institutional representatives to lay a foundation for integration of SGBM into medical school curricula and the development of national SGBM Student Competencies.

Training emergency physicians in sex- and gender-based medicine: assessing attitudes of program directors and residency graduates

BACKGROUND

Sex and gender influence disease presentation, treatment, healthcare access, and long-term outcomes. It is uncertain to what extent sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) content has been integrated into emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula. We aimed to determine if SGBM is being taught in EM residency training, if EM residency program directors (PDs) declare SGBM a curriculum priority, and if recent graduates (RGs) of EM residency programs declare SGBM as relevant to their practice.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-six RGs and 54 PDs of US ACGME EM residency programs completed a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe RGs' attitudes towards whether they had received instruction in SGBM overall and in specific content areas and attitudes about the relevance of SGBM to EM practice. Descriptive statistics were also used to describe whether SGBM was considered a curriculum priority by PDs and potential barriers to implementing SGBM into curricula.

RESULTS

43.2 % of RGs felt they received adequate training on gender differences in emergent conditions. Only 16.3 % of PDs believed gender differences in disease presentation were a curriculum priority. In contrast, the majority (59.5 %) of RGs felt that gender differences in emergency conditions were relevant to their practice. PDs listed completing curricular demands (76.6 %), lack of evidence-based content (53.2 %), and lack of faculty interest (36.2 %) as the largest obstacles to curriculum integration.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the RGs of ACGME EM residencies felt that their instruction in SGBM was not adequate, and SGBM was not reported as a consistent priority among PDs.

Evaluation of sex- and gender-based medicine training in post-graduate medical education: a cross-sectional survey study

BACKGROUND

Addressing healthcare disparities is a national priority for initiatives in precision and individualized medicine. An essential component of precision medicine is the understanding that sex and gender influence health and disease. Whether these issues are addressed in post-graduate medical education curricula is unknown.

METHODS

A questionnaire was designed and administered to residents across the Mayo Clinic enterprise to assess current knowledge of sex and gender medicine in a large program of post-graduate medical education and to identify barriers and preferred teaching methods for addressing sex and gender issues in health and disease. Descriptive and qualitative thematic analyses of the survey responses were compiled and analyzed.

RESULTS

Responses were collected from 271 residents (response rate 17.2 %; 54 % female; 46 % male). A broad cross-section of training programs on all Mayo Clinic campuses (Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida) was represented. Sixteen percent of the respondents reported they had never had an instructor or preceptor discuss how a patient's sex or gender impacted their care of a patient; 55 % said this happened only occasionally. Of medical knowledge questions about established sex- and gender-related differences, 48 % were answered incorrectly or "unsure." Qualitative thematic analysis showed that many trainees do not understand the potential impact of sex and gender on their clinical practice and/or believe it does not pertain to their specialty. A higher percentage of female participants agreed it was important to consider a patient's sex and gender when providing patient care (60.4 vs. 38.7 %, p =  0.02), and more male than female participants had participated in research that included sex and/or gender as a variable (59.6 vs. 39.0 %, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Curriculum gaps exist in post-graduate medical training regarding sex- and gender-based medicine, and residents often do not fully understand how these concepts impact their patients' care. Reviewing the definition of sex- and gender-based medicine and integrating these concepts into existing curricula can help close these knowledge gaps. As the practice of medicine becomes more individualized, it is essential to equip physicians with an understanding of how a patient's sex and gender impacts their health to provide the highest value care.

Integrating and evaluating sex and gender in health research

Both sex (biological factors) and gender (socio-cultural factors) shape health. To produce the best possible health research evidence, it is essential to integrate sex and gender considerations throughout the research process. Despite growing recognition of the importance of these factors, progress towards sex and gender integration as standard practice has been both slow and uneven in health research. In this commentary, we examine the challenges of integrating sex and gender from the research perspective, as well as strategies that can be used by researchers, funders and journal editors to address these challenges. Barriers to the integration of sex and gender in health research include problems with inconsistent terminology, difficulties in applying the concepts of sex and gender, failure to recognise the impact of sex and gender, and challenges with data collection and datasets. We analyse these barriers as strategic points of intervention for improving the integration of sex and gender at all stages of the research process. To assess the relative success of these strategies in any given study, researchers, funders and journal editors would benefit from a tool to evaluate the quality of sex and gender integration in order to establish benchmarks in research excellence. These assessment tools are needed now amidst growing institutional recognition that both sex and gender are necessary elements for advancing the quality and utility of health research evidence.