ArticleMedical education2026
Exploring the use of gender-inclusive language amongst health care students and staff in obstetrics and gynaecology.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the use of gender-inclusive language amongst health care students and staff in obstetrics and gynaecology.Medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGender-inclusive language is increasingly recognised as essential in health care to ensure respectful and equitable care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals. However, the adoption of gender-inclusive language in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) may vary across generations and hierarchical levels, and the perspectives of students and staff on its use remain underexamined. This study aimed to explore how O&G learners and clinicians understand and use gender-inclusive language.
methodsAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted in a UK teaching hospital's O&G department. Data were gathered via an online survey (27 respondents) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (12 participants: 7 students and 5 clinical staff). The study design was guided by queer and generational theory, applied via a constructivist lens. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.
resultsFour themes were generated, reflecting generational, educational and power dynamics in gender-inclusive language usage. Students generally reported greater familiarity and commitment to gender-inclusive language, whereas some senior staff, but also a minority of students, voiced reservations or confusion. Hierarchical barriers were noted, with students hesitant to challenge non-inclusive language used by superiors. Participants highlighted perceived curricular gaps and limited explicit teaching on caring for sexual and gender minority patients, recommending longitudinal, practical training, supportive correction of mistakes and visible role-modelling. Structural obstacles, such as electronic record systems lacking non-binary options, further constrained inclusive practice. Despite varied enthusiasm, participants universally emphasised respectful communication as a common professional value, converging on the importance of inclusive language for patient dignity.
conclusionsGender-inclusive language uptake in O&G is shaped by generational, hierarchical, educational and structural factors; however, a shared commitment to respectful care provides common ground. Fostering supportive intergenerational dialogue and addressing structural barriers can enable consistent, respectful practice. Senior role-modelling and structured opportunities for juniors to teach upwards may further shift clinical culture without overburdening minority staff, ultimately improving care for gender-diverse patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.