Outcomes of gender-sensitivity educational interventions for healthcare providers: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although gender plays an important role in health, most healthcare providers lack knowledge in providing gender-sensitive care. Offering gender-sensitivity training for healthcare providers can help to address gender-based health inequalities. Method: A mixed-methods systematic review of gender-sensitivity training programmes or interventions for healthcare providers was undertaken to assess their outcomes and to document areas for future research. Comprehensive searches of seven international databases were conducted for peer-reviewed literature published between 1998 and 2018. Eligible studies included at least one outcome related to gender-sensitivity training for healthcare providers. Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies focused on gender-sensitivity in reducing gender bias towards men and women, and 15 studies focused on addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) patients. Thirty-seven percent of studies showed a significant improvement in gender-related knowledge, attitudes or practice after the training. Multiple training methods were used to teach gender-sensitive care. Common content of the training included learning sex/gender terminology, understanding gender issues and inequalities in health, stigma and discrimination and communication skills. The duration and frequency of interventions ranged considerably. Sex differences in training outcomes also occurred among the learners. Conclusion: Review findings highlight that although gender-sensitivity training for healthcare providers is increasing, there is insufficient evidence to determine its effectiveness. Additional, more rigorously designed studies are needed to assess the long-term implications on learner behaviours and practices, especially across a wide variety of healthcare providers.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it