Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487129›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical education2020

Gender awareness among medical students in a Swiss University.

Ilire Rrustemi, Isabella Locatelli, Joëlle Schwarz, Toine Lagro-Janssen, Aude Fauvel, Carole Clair

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Females at a Clear Disadvantage with Postoperative Myocardial Infarction Symptoms.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ilire RrustemiFaculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. ilire.rrustemi@gmail.com.
Isabella LocatelliCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 44, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joëlle SchwarzCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 44, CH-1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Toine Lagro-JanssenDept. of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Aude FauvelInstitute of Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Avenue de Provence 82, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Carole ClairFaculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHCentre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CHRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

Swiss national science foundation (CH) PZ00P3_154732
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGender is an important social determinant, that influences healthcare. The lack of awareness on how gender influences health might lead to gender bias and can contribute to substandard patient care. Our objectives were to assess gender sensitivity and the presence of gender stereotypes among swiss medical students.

methodsA validated scale (N-GAMS - Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale), with 3 subscores assessing gender sensitivity (GS) and gender stereotypes toward patients (GRIP) and doctors (GRID) (ranging from 1 to 5), was translated into French and was distributed to all medical students registered at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland in April-May 2017. Reliability of the three subscales was assessed calculating the alpha Cronbach coefficient. Mean subscales were calculated for male and female students and compared using two sample t-tests. A linear model was built with each subscale as a dependent variable and students' sex and age as covariables.

resultsIn total, 396 students answered the N-GAMS questionnaire, their mean age was 22 years old, 62.6% of them were women. GS and GRID sub-scores were not significantly different between female and male students (GS 3.62 for women, 3.70 for men, p = 0.27, GRID 2.10 for women, 2.13 for men, p = 0.76). A statistically significant difference was found in the GRIP subscale, with a mean score of 1.83 for women and 2.07 for men (p < 0.001), which suggests a more gender stereotyped opinion toward patients among male students. A trend was observed with age, gender sensibility increased (p < 0.001) and stereotypes decreased (GRIP p = 0.04, GRID p = 0.02) with students getting older.

conclusionMedical students' gender sensitivity seems to improve throughout the medical curriculum, and women students have less stereotypes towards patients than men do. The implementation of a gender-sensitive teaching in the medical curriculum could improve students' knowledge, limit gender bias and improve patients' care.

Indexed as

SexismStereotyped BehaviorAdolescentAdultAwarenessCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleSex FactorsStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandYoung AdultGenderGender biasGender stereotypesMedical education

Identifiers

PMID32487129
PMCPMC7268694
OpenAlexW3030817292

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.