MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223442219 · doi:10.3390/jpm12040612

How to Integrate Sex and Gender Medicine into Medical and Allied Health Profession Undergraduate, Graduate, and Post-Graduate Education: Insights from a Rapid Systematic Literature Review and a Thematic Meta-Synthesis

2022· review· en· W4223442219 on OpenAlexaff
Rola Khamisy‐Farah, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationThematic analysisAlternative medicineSystematic reviewPsychologyMEDLINEMedicineFamily medicineQualitative researchSocial sciencePedagogySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex and gender are concepts that are often misunderstood and misused, being utilized in a biased, preconceived, interchangeable way. Sex and gender medicine is generally overlooked, despite the profound impact of sex and gender on health outcomes. The aims of the present rapid systematic literature review were (i) to assess the extent to which sex- and gender-sensitive topics are covered in medical courses; (ii) to assess the need for and willingness toward integrating/incorporating sex and gender medicine into health-related education; (iii) to identify barriers and facilitators of the process of implementation of sex and gender medicine in medical teaching, mentoring, and training; and (iv) to evaluate the effectiveness of interventional projects targeting curriculum building and improvement for future gender-sensitive physicians. Seven themes were identified by means of a thematic analysis, namely, (i) how much sex- and gender-based medicine is covered by medical courses and integrated into current medical curricula, (ii) the knowledge of sex and gender medicine among medical and allied health profession students, (iii) the need for and willingness toward acquiring sex- and gender-sensitive skills, (iv) how to integrate sex- and gender-based medicine into medical curricula in terms of barriers and facilitators, (v) existing platforms and tools to share knowledge related to sex and gender medicine, (vi) sex- and gender-based medicine aspects in the post-medical education, and (vii) the impact of sex- and gender-sensitive topics integrated into medical curricula. Based on the identified gaps in knowledge, further high-quality, randomized trials with larger samples are urgently warranted to fill these gaps in the field of implementation of gender medicine in educating and training future gender-sensitive physicians.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.231
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.231
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207