Gender inclusive and affirming practices across undergraduate nursing curriculum: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are increasing calls for gender affirming care, yet there remains uncertainty as to how nursing education is preparing students. The purpose of this scoping review was to map gender inclusive and affirming practices across the three levels of curriculum (formal, informal, and hidden) in the education of undergraduate nursing students. This novel approach allows consideration of transgender and gender diverse nurses (students and educators). DESIGN: Scoping review as per Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. DATA SOURCES: Four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched for literature that addressed transgender and gender diversity, discussed at any level of curriculum. In addition, we searched key schools of nursing websites for inclusion of gender inclusive and affirming practices in documents and faculty profiles. We limited our search of peer-reviewed articles and websites to those in English, from Canada and the USA. REVIEW METHODS: The article search and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers while the school of nursing websites were searched by the lead author. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were included and categorized as either (a) Doing (n = 32) (formal, intervention-based) or (b) Thinking (n = 15) (discussion- or evaluation-based) gender inclusive and affirming practices. Twenty-five of the intervention-based articles were single-instance occurrences of learning, primarily by simulation (n = 17). Recommendations at each level of curriculum are offered. Of the 22 schools of nursing websites searched, less than 2 % of faculty profiles list pronouns. CONCLUSIONS: While there has been an uptake of formal interventions on gender affirming care there remains a gap in addressing gender inclusive and affirming practices at the informal and hidden curriculum levels. Gender inclusive and affirming practices across all levels of nursing education can help advance culturally safe practices for TGD patients and experiences for TGD nurses and students.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".