ArticlePLOS global public health2026
From evidence to action: Gender-sensitive cardiovascular care - A quantitative survey with physicians working in cardiology departments.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gender-sensitive care (GSC+) is a key component of personalized medicine and essential for ensuring quality and equity in cardiovascular care. By integrating biological, social, and cultural dimensions of gender as well as diversity-related factors, GSC + can enhance diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness. Although cardiovascular guidelines increasingly incorporate sex- and gender-specific recommendations, little is known about physicians' awareness, knowledge, and the extent to which GSC + is implemented in practice. This study aimed to assess physicians' gender sensitivity, knowledge of sex- and gender-specific guideline content, and the perceived implementation of GSC+ in inpatient cardiology settings. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among physicians working in German inpatient cardiology wards (n = 155). The questionnaire assessed gender sensitivity (N-GAMS), knowledge of sex- and gender-specific cardiovascular guideline content, and perceived implementation of in clinical practice. Descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses were performed. Physicians demonstrated high gender sensitivity (M = 3.95, SD = 0.73) and moderate-to-high knowledge of guideline content (M = 0.63, SD = 0.08). Specific knowledge gaps were identified. The perceived implementation of GSC+ in clinical practice was rated as moderate to low (M = 2.45, SD = 0.59). Higher knowledge levels were observed among physicians working in university hospitals, while differences in gender sensitivity were observed with respect to country of birth. Importantly, no significant relationships were found between gender sensitivity, knowledge, and perceived implementation, indicating a disconnect between awareness, knowledge, and clinical application. The findings indicate a gap between existing scientific evidence and its translation into practice. While physicians exhibit high awareness and adequate knowledge, this does not consistently translate into implementation. This discrepancy underscores structural and systemic barriers to integrating GSC+ into care. Strengthening the systematic incorporation into clinical guidelines, medical education, and institutional quality frameworks may enhance implementation, reduce diagnostic and therapeutic disparities, and promote more equitable, evidence-based cardiovascular care.
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.