Curricular initiatives that enhance student knowledge and perceptions of sexual and gender minority groups: a critical interpretive synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no accepted best practice for optimizing tertiary student knowledge, perceptions, and skills to care for sexual and gender diverse groups. The objective of this research was to synthesize the relevant literature regarding effective curricular initiatives designed to enhance tertiary level student knowledge, perceptions, and skills to care for sexual and gender diverse populations. METHODS: A modified Critical Interpretive Synthesis using a systematic search strategy was conducted in 2015. This method was chosen to synthesize the relevant qualitative and quantitative literature as it allows for the depth and breadth of information to be captured and new constructs to be illuminated. Databases searched include AMED, CINAHL EBM Reviews, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Nursing Database, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles were included in this review. Curricular initiatives ranging from discrete to multimodal approaches have been implemented. Successful initiatives included discrete sessions with time for processing, and multi-modal strategies. Multi-modal approaches that encouraged awareness of one's lens and privilege in conjunction with facilitated communication seemed the most effective. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is limited to the evaluation of explicit curricula. The wider cultural competence literature offers further insight by highlighting the importance of broad and embedded forces including social influences, the institutional climate, and the implicit, or hidden, curriculum. A combined interpretation of the complementary cultural competence and sexual and gender diversity literature provides a novel understanding of the optimal content and context for the delivery of a successful curricular initiative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".