Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27785343›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2016

Auditing sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) content in medical school curriculum: a student scholar model.

Michael M Song, Betsy G Jones, Robert A Casanova

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Sex and gender in interstitial lung diseases.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Experiences with a graduate course on sex and gender medicine in Korea.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael M SongSchool of Medicine and Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine Cancer Center, Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th St. Stop 9224, Lubbock, TX 79430 USA.
Betsy G JonesDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th St. Stop 6525, Lubbock, TX 79430-0002 USA.
Robert A CasanovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th St. Stop 8326, Lubbock, TX 79430 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) aims to (1) delineate and investigate sex- and gender-based differences in health, disease, and response to treatment and (2) apply that knowledge to clinical care to improve the health of both women and men. However, the integration of SGBM into medical school curricula is often haphazard and poorly defined; schools often do not know the current status of SGBM content in their curricula, even if they are committed to addressing gaps and improving SGBM delivery. Therefore, complete auditing and accounting of SGBM content in the existing medical school curriculum is necessary to determine the baseline status and prepare for successful integration of SGBM content into that curriculum.

methodsA review of course syllabi and lecture objectives as well as a targeted data analysis of the Curriculum Management and Information Tool (CurrMIT) were completed prior to a real-time curriculum audit. Subsequently, six "student scholars," three first-year and three second-year medical students, were recruited and trained to audit the first 2 years of the medical school curriculum for SGBM content, thus completing an audit for both of the pre-clinical years simultaneously. A qualitative analysis and a post-audit comparative analysis were completed to assess the level of SGBM instruction at our institution.

resultsThe review of syllabi and the CurrMIT data analysis did not generate a meaningful catalogue of SGBM content in the curriculum; most of the content identified specifically targeted women's or men's health topics and not sex- or gender-based differences. The real-time student audit of the existing curriculum at Texas Tech revealed that most of the SGBM material was focused on the physiological/anatomical sex differences or gender differences in disease prevalence, with minimal coverage of sex- or gender-based differences in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and outcomes.

conclusionsThe real-time student scholar audit was effective in identifying SGBM content in the existing medical school curriculum that was not possible with a retrospective review of course syllabi and lecture objectives or curriculum databases such as the CurrMIT. The audit results revealed the need for improved efforts to teach SGBM topics in our school's pre-clinical curriculum.

Indexed as

Medical school curriculum evaluationSex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM)SGBM curriculum integration

Identifiers

PMID27785343
PMCPMC5073909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.