Medical education · 2026
Exploring the use of gender-inclusive language amongst health care students and staff in obstetrics and gynaecology.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aitken Debbie, Lin Georgia, Wal Bhabesh San San, Rhodes Merryn, Aly Mariam, Amiry Jack
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Gender-inclusive language is increasingly recognised as essential in health care to ensure respectful and equitable care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals. However, the adoption of gender-inclusive language in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) may vary across generations and hierarchical levels, and the perspectives of students and staff on its use remain underexamined. This study aimed to explore how O&G learners and clinicians understand and use gender-inclusive language.
METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted in a UK teaching hospital's O&G department. Data were gathered via an online survey (27 respondents) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (12 participants: 7 students and 5 clinical staff). The study design was guided by queer and generational theory, applied via a constructivist lens. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.
RESULTS: Four themes were generated, reflecting generational, educational and power dynamics in gender-inclusive language usage. Students generally reported greater familiarity and commitment to gender-inclusive language, whereas some senior staff, but also a minority of students, voiced reservations or confusion. Hierarchical barriers were noted, with students hesitant to challenge non-inclusive language used by superiors. Participants highlighted perceived curricular gaps and limited explicit teaching on caring for sexual and gender minority patients, recommending longitudinal, practical training, supportive correction of mistakes and visible role-modelling. Structural obstacles, such as electronic record systems lacking non-binary options, further constrained inclusive practice. Despite varied enthusiasm, participants universally emphasised respectful communication as a common professional value, converging on the importance of inclusive language for patient dignity.
CONCLUSIONS: Gender-inclusive language uptake in O&G is shaped by generational, hierarchical, educational and structural factors; however, a shared commitment to respectful care provides common ground. Fostering supportive intergenerational dialogue and addressing structural barriers can enable consistent, respectful practice. Senior role-modelling and structured opportunities for juniors to teach upwards may further shift clinical culture without overburdening minority staff, ultimately improving care for gender-diverse patients.
METHODS: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted in a UK teaching hospital's O&G department. Data were gathered via an online survey (27 respondents) and follow-up semi-structured interviews (12 participants: 7 students and 5 clinical staff). The study design was guided by queer and generational theory, applied via a constructivist lens. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.
RESULTS: Four themes were generated, reflecting generational, educational and power dynamics in gender-inclusive language usage. Students generally reported greater familiarity and commitment to gender-inclusive language, whereas some senior staff, but also a minority of students, voiced reservations or confusion. Hierarchical barriers were noted, with students hesitant to challenge non-inclusive language used by superiors. Participants highlighted perceived curricular gaps and limited explicit teaching on caring for sexual and gender minority patients, recommending longitudinal, practical training, supportive correction of mistakes and visible role-modelling. Structural obstacles, such as electronic record systems lacking non-binary options, further constrained inclusive practice. Despite varied enthusiasm, participants universally emphasised respectful communication as a common professional value, converging on the importance of inclusive language for patient dignity.
CONCLUSIONS: Gender-inclusive language uptake in O&G is shaped by generational, hierarchical, educational and structural factors; however, a shared commitment to respectful care provides common ground. Fostering supportive intergenerational dialogue and addressing structural barriers can enable consistent, respectful practice. Senior role-modelling and structured opportunities for juniors to teach upwards may further shift clinical culture without overburdening minority staff, ultimately improving care for gender-diverse patients.