What Does Men's Health Education Look Like in Australian University Health Curricula? A Formative Evaluation and Future Enhancement Opportunities

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Zac E. Seidler, Michelle Sheldrake, Ruben Benakovic, Michael J. Wilson, Neil Hall, Gary A. Wittert, Margaret A. McGee
{"title":"What Does Men's Health Education Look Like in Australian University Health Curricula? A Formative Evaluation and Future Enhancement Opportunities","authors":"Zac E. Seidler, Michelle Sheldrake, Ruben Benakovic, Michael J. Wilson, Neil Hall, Gary A. Wittert, Margaret A. McGee","doi":"10.1177/23821205241271564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESDeveloping the capacity of the health system, and the practitioners within it, to provide quality gender responsive care to men and boys remains critical to advancing men's health, and reducing health inequities amongst men. The aim for this study was to undertake a formative evaluation of Australian university health curricula for men's health content and scope the opportunities for future enhancement.METHODSA two-stage evaluation first involved a review of online course information for a sample of medicine ( n = 10), nursing ( n = 10), pharmacy ( n = 10), clinical psychology ( n = 10), social work ( n = 12) and public health ( n = 15) university curricula for men's health and gender content and opportunities for curricula enhancement. Secondly, university staff completed a survey on the coverage of men's health in their course(s), and receptivity, barriers and facilitators to curricula enhancement.RESULTSThe curricula review found no dedicated men's health courses, and men's health was referenced in the information for 10 of 1246 courses (0.8%) in 8 of 67 curricula. Gender was rarely referenced in course information, particularly for the disciplines of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and clinical psychology. There was an average of 16 enhancement opportunities per curricula with 40% relating to communicating and engaging with men within healthcare. Seventy staff from 25 universities and all target disciplines validated the curricula review findings of limited dedicated men's health content. Eighty-three percent were receptive to curricula enhancement, facilitated by content integration into existing courses.CONCLUSIONThis review provides clear evidence that there are gaps, opportunities, and educator receptiveness for improving and implementing content regarding men's health education and gender responsive care in Australian university health curricula.","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241271564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVESDeveloping the capacity of the health system, and the practitioners within it, to provide quality gender responsive care to men and boys remains critical to advancing men's health, and reducing health inequities amongst men. The aim for this study was to undertake a formative evaluation of Australian university health curricula for men's health content and scope the opportunities for future enhancement.METHODSA two-stage evaluation first involved a review of online course information for a sample of medicine ( n = 10), nursing ( n = 10), pharmacy ( n = 10), clinical psychology ( n = 10), social work ( n = 12) and public health ( n = 15) university curricula for men's health and gender content and opportunities for curricula enhancement. Secondly, university staff completed a survey on the coverage of men's health in their course(s), and receptivity, barriers and facilitators to curricula enhancement.RESULTSThe curricula review found no dedicated men's health courses, and men's health was referenced in the information for 10 of 1246 courses (0.8%) in 8 of 67 curricula. Gender was rarely referenced in course information, particularly for the disciplines of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and clinical psychology. There was an average of 16 enhancement opportunities per curricula with 40% relating to communicating and engaging with men within healthcare. Seventy staff from 25 universities and all target disciplines validated the curricula review findings of limited dedicated men's health content. Eighty-three percent were receptive to curricula enhancement, facilitated by content integration into existing courses.CONCLUSIONThis review provides clear evidence that there are gaps, opportunities, and educator receptiveness for improving and implementing content regarding men's health education and gender responsive care in Australian university health curricula.
澳大利亚大学健康课程中的男性健康教育是什么样的?形成性评估与未来改进机会
目标提高医疗系统及其从业人员的能力,为男性和男童提供优质的性别关怀服务,对于促进男性健康和减少男性健康不平等现象至关重要。这项研究的目的是对澳大利亚大学的男性健康课程内容进行形成性评估,并确定今后的改进机会。方法评估分为两个阶段,首先是对医学(10 人)、护理学(10 人)、药学(10 人)、临床心理学(10 人)、社会工作(12 人)和公共卫生(15 人)等大学的男性健康和性别内容以及课程改进机会的在线课程信息进行抽样审查。其次,大学教职员工完成了一项调查,内容涉及其课程中有关男性健康的内容,以及对课程强化的接受程度、障碍和促进因素。结果课程审查发现没有专门的男性健康课程,在 67 门课程中,有 8 门课程的 1246 门课程中的 10 门课程(0.8%)的信息中提到了男性健康。课程信息中很少提及性别,尤其是医学、护理学、药学和临床心理学等学科。每门课程平均有 16 个提升机会,其中 40% 与医疗保健领域中与男性的沟通和接触有关。来自 25 所大学和所有目标学科的 70 名教职员工证实了课程审查结果,即专门针对男性健康的内容有限。83%的教职员工表示可以通过将课程内容整合到现有课程中的方式来加强课程内容。结论:本次审查提供了明确的证据,表明在澳大利亚大学卫生课程中,存在着改进和实施男性健康教育和性别护理内容的差距、机会和教育者接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信