Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Sex and Gender in Preparatory Material for National Medical Examination in Germany and the United States. (January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schluchter, Helena; Nauman, Ahmad T; Ludwig, Sabine; Regitz-Zagrosek, Vera; Seeland, Ute
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical education and curricular development. Volume 7(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-01
• Subjects: Sex- and gender-based medicine -- medical education -- sex differences -- e-learning -- national medical examination -- learning material; Medical education -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Education, Medical; Medical education; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.71
• DOI: 10.1177/2382120519894253
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2382-1205

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.