Doing gender inclusive and affirmingr practices in undergraduate nursing education: Preliminary findings from a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care professionals are required by their codes of ethics to provide equitable care for all (1–4). Often, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized groups are denied equitable health care (5). One contributing factor is inadequate health professional education concerning equity and social accountability (6). While health professional education has improved its formal curricula regarding health equity, the informal (relationships and interactions) and hidden curricula (the culture and values of a profession and/or institution) are lesser known (7,8). Preliminary findings from a scoping review (n=40), being conducted as part of my thesis work, shows that most efforts to advance gender inclusive and affirming (GIA) nursing education are in the formal curricula, with minimal efforts to address the informal and much less so the hidden curricula. GIA practices, like gender-affirming care, benefit people of all genders, however, GIA practices go a step further to create GIA spaces that transcend health care into all spaces (9,10). As such, our scoping review is mapping GIA practices across the curriculum within nursing schools in Canada and the USA (11). The proposed poster will outline initial findings of how schools are doing GIA practices in undergraduate nursing education, including outlining gaps and recommendations. FGS attendees who visit this poster will be invited to engage in a dialogue about what GIA health care means to them and how they want to see GIA enacted in health care professional education and health care practices. References 1. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism. Can Med Assoc [Internet]. 2018;1–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20311772%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1930662 2. Canadian Nurses Association. Code of ethics for registered nurses. 2017; Available from: www.nanb.nb.ca/media/resource/Code_of_Ethics-2017-E.pdf 3. Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Code of ethical conduct [Internet]. 2020 p. 1. Available from: https://physiotherapy.ca/cpa-code-ethics 4. Canadian Dental Association. CDA principles of ethics [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.cda-adc.ca/en/about/ethics/ 5. McGibbon E, editor. Oppression: A social determinant of health. 2nd ed. Fernwood Publishing; 2021. 6. Ventres W, Boelen C, Haq C. Time for action: key considerations for implementing social accountability in the education of health professionals. Adv Health Sci Educ [Internet]. 2018 Oct [cited 2023 Sep 19];23(4):853–62. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10459-017-9792-z 7. Raso A, Marchetti A, D’Angelo D, Albanesi B, Garrino L, Dimonte V, et al. The hidden curriculum in nursing education: a scoping study. Med Educ [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jan 27];53(10):989–1002. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/medu.13911 8. Hafferty FW. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum. Acad Med [Internet]. 1998;73(4):403–7. Available from: https://oce-ovid-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/article/00001888-199804000-00013/HTML 9. Rivera D. Care without assumption: the perceptions of transgender persons regarding their experiences with nursing care. Int J Hum Caring [Internet]. 2019 Jul [cited 2022 Nov 20];23(3):242–53. Available from: http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=139213252&site=ehost-live 10. Soled KRS, Clark KD, Altman MR, Bosse JD, Thompson RA, Squires A, et al. Changing language, changes lives: Learning the lexicon of LGBTQ+ health equity. Res Nurs Health [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 7];45(6):621–32. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nur.22274 11. Crawford J, Schultz ASH, Linton J, Kramer M, Ristock J. Gender-affirming care in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2023;13(3):e070576. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85150263559&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2022-070576&partnerID=40&md5=95d1b466e7f84e3dc1051f2728a03d32
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 | 0.099 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".