Schluchter Helena, Nauman Ahmad T, Ludwig Sabine, Regitz-Zagrosek Vera, Seeland Ute
Institute of Gender in Medicine (GiM), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020 Jan 10;7:2382120519894253. doi: 10.1177/2382120519894253. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
Sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) should be a mandatory part of medical education. We compared the quantity and quality of sex- and gender-related content of e-learning materials commonly used by German and American medical students while preparing for national medical examinations.
Quantitative, line-by-line analysis of the preparatory materials AMBOSS 2017 and USMLE Step 1 Lecture Notes (2017) by KAPLAN MEDICAL was performed between April and October 2017. Subjects were allocated to one of the three main fields: , and . Qualitative analysis comprised binary categorization into sex- and gender-based aspects and qualification with respect to the presence of a pathophysiological explanation for the sex or gender difference.
In relation to the total content of AMBOSS and KAPLAN, the sex- and gender-based share of the clinical subjects content was 26.8% (±8.2) in AMBOSS and 21.1% (±10.2) in KAPLAN. The number of sex- and gender-based aspects in the behavioral and social science learning material differed significantly for AMBOSS and KAPLAN (4.4% ± 3.1% vs 10.7% ± 7.5%; = .044). Most of the sex- and gender-related content covered sex differences. Most learning cards and texts did not include a detailed pathophysiological explanation for sex- or gender-based aspects. The knowledge provided in the preparatory documents represents only a small part of facts that are already known about sex and gender differences.
The preparatory materials focused almost exclusively on biological sex differences and the sociocultural dimension in particular is underrepresented. A lot more evidence-based facts are known and should be integrated into the materials to reflect the importance of SGBM as an integral component of patient-centered medicine.
基于性别的医学（SGBM）应成为医学教育的必修部分。我们比较了德国和美国医学生在准备国家医学考试时常用的电子学习材料中与性和性别相关内容的数量和质量。
2017年4月至10月期间，对KAPLAN MEDICAL的备考材料AMBOSS 2017和美国医师执照考试第一步讲座笔记（2017）进行了逐行定量分析。主题被分配到三个主要领域之一： ， 和 。定性分析包括基于性和性别的方面的二元分类以及关于性或性别差异的病理生理学解释的存在的资格认定。
就AMBOSS和KAPLAN的总内容而言，临床主题内容中基于性和性别的比例在AMBOSS中为26.8%（±8.2），在KAPLAN中为21.1%（±10.2）。AMBOSS和KAPLAN的行为和社会科学学习材料中基于性和性别的方面的数量存在显著差异（4.4%±3.1%对10.7%±7.5%； = 0.044）。大多数与性和性别相关的内容涵盖了性别差异。大多数学习卡片和文本没有包括基于性或性别的方面的详细病理生理学解释。备考文件中提供的知识仅代表已知的关于性和性别差异的事实的一小部分。
备考材料几乎完全集中在生物性别差异上，特别是社会文化层面的代表性不足。已知更多基于证据的事实，应将其纳入材料中，以反映SGBM作为以患者为中心的医学的一个组成部分的重要性。
