Patient education and counseling · 2023
The influence of patient gender on medical students' care: Evaluation during an objective structured clinical examination.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Le Boudec Joana, Félix Sylvie, Gachoud David, Monti Matteo, Barazzoni Mirjam Schuler, Clair Carole
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether men and women are evaluated and treated differently by medical students.
METHODS: We evaluated patient care provided by 110 fifth-year medical students during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), using two clinical cases with standardized patients (SPs): generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and ascending aortic dissection (AAD). Half of the students encountered male and half female SPs. Except for gender, the cases were identical. We compared diagnosis and treatment of male vs female SPs.
RESULTS: Students diagnosed GAD more often in female SPs than in male SPs (diagnosis completed, partially completed, and not completed in 47%, 16% and 36% respectively vs. 22%, 20%, and 58% for male SPs, p = 0.02). The nature of symptoms was better described for male SPs. For AAD, the emergency was more frequently identified and the examination of femoral pulses better performed in female SPs.
CONCLUSION: Medical students have a gender bias when evaluating patients with GAD and AAD.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The observed gender bias in the evaluation of patients, likely leads to differences in treatment between male and female patients (i.e. under-recognition of anxiety in men). Medical schools should implement gender-sensitive medical education initiatives to improve inclusive patient care.
METHODS: We evaluated patient care provided by 110 fifth-year medical students during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), using two clinical cases with standardized patients (SPs): generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and ascending aortic dissection (AAD). Half of the students encountered male and half female SPs. Except for gender, the cases were identical. We compared diagnosis and treatment of male vs female SPs.
RESULTS: Students diagnosed GAD more often in female SPs than in male SPs (diagnosis completed, partially completed, and not completed in 47%, 16% and 36% respectively vs. 22%, 20%, and 58% for male SPs, p = 0.02). The nature of symptoms was better described for male SPs. For AAD, the emergency was more frequently identified and the examination of femoral pulses better performed in female SPs.
CONCLUSION: Medical students have a gender bias when evaluating patients with GAD and AAD.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The observed gender bias in the evaluation of patients, likely leads to differences in treatment between male and female patients (i.e. under-recognition of anxiety in men). Medical schools should implement gender-sensitive medical education initiatives to improve inclusive patient care.