Moll Joel, Vennard David, Noto Rachel, Moran Timothy, Krieger Paul, Moreno-Walton Lisa, Heron Sheryl L
Department of Emergency Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Richmond Virginia USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta Georgia USA.
AEM Educ Train. 2021 Apr 1;5(2):e10580. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10580. eCollection 2021 Apr.
Despite identified inequities and disparities in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) health, past studies have shown little or no education at the medical school or residency level for emergency physicians. With increased focus on health inequities and disparities, we sought to reexamine the status of sexual and gender minority health education in U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residencies.
Our primary objective was to determine how many EM residencies offer education on LGBTQ+ health. Secondary objectives included the number of actual versus preferred hours of LGBTQ+ training, identification of barriers to providing education, and correlation of education with program demographics. Finally, we compared our current data with past results of our 2013 study.
The initial survey that sought to examine LGBTQ+ training in 2013 was used and sent in 2020 via email to EM programs accredited by the American Council for Graduate Medical Education who had at least one full class of residents in 2019. Reminder emails and a reminder post on the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine listserv were used to increase participation.
A total of 229 programs were eligible, with a 49.3% response rate (113/229). The majority (75%) offered education content on LGBTQ+ health, for a median (IQR) of 2 (1-3) hours and a range of 0 to 22 hours. Respondents preferred more hours of education than offered (median desired hours = 4, IQR = 2-5 hours; p < 0.001). The largest barrier identified was lack of time in curriculum (63%). The majority of programs had known LGBTQ+ faculty and residents. Inclusion and amount of education hours positively correlated with presence of LGBTQ+ faculty or residents; university- and county-based programs were more likely to deliver education content than private groups (p = 0.03). Awareness of known LGBTQ+ residents but not faculty differed by region, but there was no significant difference in actual or preferred content by region.
The majority of respondents offer education in sexual and gender minority health, although there remains a gap between actual and preferred hours. This is a notable increase from 26% of responding programs providing education in 2013. Several barriers still exist, and the content, impact, and completeness of education remain areas for further study.
尽管已发现女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别、酷儿及性取向存疑者(LGBTQ+)群体的健康存在不平等和差异,但过去的研究表明,医学院校或住院医师培训阶段针对急诊医师的此类教育很少或根本没有。随着对健康不平等和差异的关注度不断提高,我们试图重新审视美国急诊医学(EM)住院医师培训中性少数群体和性别少数群体健康教育的现状。
我们的主要目的是确定有多少急诊医学住院医师培训项目提供LGBTQ+健康方面的教育。次要目的包括LGBTQ+培训的实际时长与期望时长、确定提供教育的障碍,以及教育与项目人口统计学特征的相关性。最后,我们将当前数据与2013年研究的过去结果进行了比较。
采用2013年用于调查LGBTQ+培训情况的初始调查问卷,并于2020年通过电子邮件发送给美国毕业后医学教育认证委员会认可的急诊医学项目,这些项目在2019年至少有一届完整的住院医师班级。我们还使用了提醒邮件以及在急诊医学住院医师主任委员会邮件列表上发布提醒帖子来提高参与度。
共有229个项目符合条件,回复率为49.3%(113/229)。大多数项目(75%)提供了LGBTQ+健康方面的教育内容,中位数(四分位间距)为2(1 - 3)小时,范围为0至22小时。受访者期望的教育时长多于实际提供的时长(期望时长中位数 = 4,四分位间距 = 2 - 5小时;p < 0.001)。所确定的最大障碍是课程时间不足(63%)。大多数项目有已知的LGBTQ+教员和住院医师。教育内容的纳入情况和时长与LGBTQ+教员或住院医师的存在呈正相关;基于大学和县级的项目比私立机构更有可能提供教育内容(p = 0.03)。对已知LGBTQ+住院医师而非教员的了解因地区而异,但不同地区在实际或期望内容方面没有显著差异。
大多数受访者提供性少数群体和性别少数群体健康方面的教育,尽管实际时长与期望时长之间仍存在差距。这与2013年26%的回复项目提供此类教育相比有显著增加。仍然存在一些障碍,教育的内容、影响和完整性仍是需要进一步研究的领域。