(152) WILL WE LEARN ABOUT SEXUAL HEALTH? A SCOPING REVIEW ON THE INCLUSION OF SEXUAL HEALTH IN THE CURRICULUMS OF EUROPEAN MEDICAL SCHOOLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Sexual health is an insufficiently addressed topic within the scope of medical training programs in both pre and postgraduate Medicine levels, being identified by doctors as a gap area in their professional training. The lack of sexual health topics in medical training programs often leads to insecurity of this professionals in dealing with their patients’ sexual problems. The aim of this study is to collect information on sexuality/sexual health training currently available at pre and postgraduate levels in the main national and European medical schools, as well as specifically within the scope of medical internship. Methods Using the mailing list provided by European Academy of General Medicine of the European Academy of General Medicine (EURACT) and available online, we contacted the main national and European medical schools to have access to their medical curriculums and training programs, type of training provided on pre and postgraduate sexuality/sexual health, learning strategies and specific competences in sexuality/sexual health. We examined 1) whether medical curricula included the topic of sexual health/sexuality, 2) which sexuality topics were addressed, and 3) which learning strategies were used. Results The results of this study allowed us to understand the state of the European medical training in sexuality/sexual health within and between European countries. Besides, we could evaluate the training content and specific skills on sexuality/sexual health, as well as identify strategies and different types of exposure to training content practiced in national and European medical schools. Conclusions We hope the current results will serve as the basis for the development of future studies and practices aimed to enhance medical doctor’s approach when handling sexual health topics. In addition to the scientific implications, we hope it will also have ethical, social, and political impact, by motivating national policies and raising awareness of the lack of education in the community regarding sexual health. Conflicts of Interest The authors report no conflicts of interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".