Advancing Medical Education in Sex- and Gender-Based Mechanisms of Disease: Current Educator Knowledge and Future Directions.

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2026-08-05 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26884844261473350
Mina Al-Badri, Mohammed Dheyaa Marsool, Ann Rydberg, Joseph G Hentz, Matthew R Buras, Jaxon K Quillen, Juliana M Kling
{"title":"Advancing Medical Education in Sex- and Gender-Based Mechanisms of Disease: Current Educator Knowledge and Future Directions.","authors":"Mina Al-Badri, Mohammed Dheyaa Marsool, Ann Rydberg, Joseph G Hentz, Matthew R Buras, Jaxon K Quillen, Juliana M Kling","doi":"10.1177/26884844261473350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sex and gender influence disease mechanisms and outcomes, yet their integration into medical curricula remains limited. Faculty knowledge and confidence are essential for effective incorporation. This study assessed baseline sex- and gender-specific health (SGSH) knowledge, attitudes, and comfort among medical school educators and delivered a multi-format faculty development intervention. A survey adapted from prior SGSH assessments was distributed to medical school block leaders before the intervention, measuring SGSH knowledge, comfort differentiating sex and gender, awareness of SGSH resources, and readiness to integrate SGSH content. The intervention included virtual and in-person grand rounds, distribution of <i>How Sex and Gender Impact Clinical Practice</i>, and a screening of <i>Ms. Diagnosed</i>. Of the 103 invited to participate, 68 educators (66% response rate) completed the baseline survey. Forty percent reported no prior SGSH training, and only 13.2% felt very comfortable with SGSH concepts. Although 94.1% correctly identified gender as a social construct and sex assignment at birth, 22% remained uncomfortable distinguishing the two. More than 80% were neutral or uncomfortable identifying SGSH resources. Comfort with curriculum integration varied: 45.6% felt comfortable, 32.4% neutral, and 22.1% uncomfortable, with differences observed across specialties. These findings reveal significant gaps in medical educators' SGSH knowledge and comfort regardless of experience, with SGSH content narrowly confined to reproductive health topics. Simply providing resources is insufficient; educators need structured guidance on integration. By outlining baseline gaps and an intervention model, this study offers a framework for institutions seeking to enhance SGSH integration through interactive, longitudinal, multi-format faculty development approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"7 ","pages":"26884844261473350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13443235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26884844261473350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sex and gender influence disease mechanisms and outcomes, yet their integration into medical curricula remains limited. Faculty knowledge and confidence are essential for effective incorporation. This study assessed baseline sex- and gender-specific health (SGSH) knowledge, attitudes, and comfort among medical school educators and delivered a multi-format faculty development intervention. A survey adapted from prior SGSH assessments was distributed to medical school block leaders before the intervention, measuring SGSH knowledge, comfort differentiating sex and gender, awareness of SGSH resources, and readiness to integrate SGSH content. The intervention included virtual and in-person grand rounds, distribution of How Sex and Gender Impact Clinical Practice, and a screening of Ms. Diagnosed. Of the 103 invited to participate, 68 educators (66% response rate) completed the baseline survey. Forty percent reported no prior SGSH training, and only 13.2% felt very comfortable with SGSH concepts. Although 94.1% correctly identified gender as a social construct and sex assignment at birth, 22% remained uncomfortable distinguishing the two. More than 80% were neutral or uncomfortable identifying SGSH resources. Comfort with curriculum integration varied: 45.6% felt comfortable, 32.4% neutral, and 22.1% uncomfortable, with differences observed across specialties. These findings reveal significant gaps in medical educators' SGSH knowledge and comfort regardless of experience, with SGSH content narrowly confined to reproductive health topics. Simply providing resources is insufficient; educators need structured guidance on integration. By outlining baseline gaps and an intervention model, this study offers a framework for institutions seeking to enhance SGSH integration through interactive, longitudinal, multi-format faculty development approaches.

推进性别和基于性别的疾病机制的医学教育:当前教育者的知识和未来的方向。
性别和社会性别影响疾病的机制和结果,但将其纳入医学课程的程度仍然有限。教师的知识和信心是有效整合的必要条件。本研究评估了医学院教育工作者的基线性和性别特异性健康(SGSH)知识、态度和舒适度,并提供了多种形式的教师发展干预。在干预之前,将一份根据先前SGSH评估改编的调查分发给医学院院区领导,测量SGSH知识、区分性别和性别的舒适度、对SGSH资源的认识以及整合SGSH内容的准备程度。干预包括虚拟和面对面的大查房,分发性别和性别如何影响临床实践,以及对诊断女士的筛查。在103位受邀参与的教育工作者中,有68位(66%的回复率)完成了基线调查。40%的人报告没有受过SGSH培训,只有13.2%的人对SGSH概念感到很舒服。尽管94.1%的人在出生时正确地将性别视为社会结构和性别分配,但22%的人仍然不习惯区分这两者。超过80%的人对确定SGSH资源持中立或不舒服的态度。对课程整合的满意程度各不相同:45.6%感到满意,32.4%感到一般,22.1%感到不舒服,各专业之间存在差异。这些发现表明,无论经验如何,医学教育者在生殖健康知识和舒适度方面存在重大差距,生殖健康知识和舒适度的内容仅局限于生殖健康主题。仅仅提供资源是不够的;教育工作者需要结构化的整合指导。通过概述基线差距和干预模式,本研究为寻求通过交互式、纵向、多格式教师发展方法加强SGSH整合的机构提供了一个框架。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书