Beyond bikini medicine: An analysis of  Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine in a preclinical undergraduate medical education.

<ns3:p>Introduction Despite the expanding literature demonstrating widespread sex and gender differences across all organ systems, the inclusion of Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine (SGIM) in medical education is lacking, leaving medical students without an appreciation for physiologic and sociocultural differences that affect health, disease, and healthcare delivery. Methods We performed an audit of the five courses of the Harvard Medical School pre-clinical curriculum that teach physiology and pathophysiology using case-based collaborative learning (CBCL). Using a standard codebook, reviewers recorded: time per case, diagnosis/focus of case, age, sex, gender, pronouns, pregnancy status, and sexual orientation. Coders were asked to determine if the CBCL patient’s sex/gender chosen was “intentional” and if there was further discussion around sex- and gender-specific influences on disease. Each case was coded by two auditors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Results Across five courses, 591 patient cases taught over 380 hours were analyzed. 298 (50.4%) of CBCL patients were women, 235 (39.8%) men, five (0.8%) non-binary, and 53 (9.0%) gender undefined. Relationships were predominantly between discordant gendered partners (37 cases, 82.2% of cases with relationships). Only 60 cases (10.2%) were coded as having a patient sex or gender that was intentionally chosen during case design, predominantly to reflect population-level disease epidemiology or prevalence by gender (45%). Only 39 cases (6.6%) included deliberate learning dedicated to sex or gender differences in health and disease, with most discussions within cases of reproduction or inflammatory/autoimmune diseases. Conclusion Our review demonstrated a deficiency of SGIM content in our institution’s preclinical curriculum with only 6.6% of CBCL cases providing deliberate teaching on sex and gender differences in health and disease, largely confined to reproductive topics. We propose the creation of dedicated, daily course material in collaboration with experts to increase exposure to SGIM so students can confidently treat any patient.</ns3:p>

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
MedEdPublish
Published
2025-08-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.20959.1
Primary Topic
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Beyond bikini medicine: An analysis of  Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine in a preclinical undergraduate medical education.

Natasha R. Johnson, Celeste S. Royce, Alex S. Keuroghlian, Deborah Bartz et al.
MedEdPublish
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
article

Beyond bikini medicine: An analysis of  Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine in a preclinical undergraduate medical education.

Natasha R. Johnson, Celeste S. Royce, Alex S. Keuroghlian, Deborah Bartz, K. Meredith Atkins, Zoe A. Kibbelaar, Katherine Wasden
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p>Introduction Despite the expanding literature demonstrating widespread sex and gender differences across all organ systems, the inclusion of Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine (SGIM) in medical education is lacking, leaving medical students without an appreciation for physiologic and sociocultural differences that affect health, disease, and healthcare delivery. Methods We performed an audit of the five courses of the Harvard Medical School pre-clinical curriculum that teach physiology and pathophysiology using case-based collaborative learning (CBCL). Using a standard codebook, reviewers recorded: time per case, diagnosis/focus of case, age, sex, gender, pronouns, pregnancy status, and sexual orientation. Coders were asked to determine if the CBCL patient’s sex/gender chosen was “intentional” and if there was further discussion around sex- and gender-specific influences on disease. Each case was coded by two auditors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Results Across five courses, 591 patient cases taught over 380 hours were analyzed. 298 (50.4%) of CBCL patients were women, 235 (39.8%) men, five (0.8%) non-binary, and 53 (9.0%) gender undefined. Relationships were predominantly between discordant gendered partners (37 cases, 82.2% of cases with relationships). Only 60 cases (10.2%) were coded as having a patient sex or gender that was intentionally chosen during case design, predominantly to reflect population-level disease epidemiology or prevalence by gender (45%). Only 39 cases (6.6%) included deliberate learning dedicated to sex or gender differences in health and disease, with most discussions within cases of reproduction or inflammatory/autoimmune diseases. Conclusion Our review demonstrated a deficiency of SGIM content in our institution’s preclinical curriculum with only 6.6% of CBCL cases providing deliberate teaching on sex and gender differences in health and disease, largely confined to reproductive topics. We propose the creation of dedicated, daily course material in collaboration with experts to increase exposure to SGIM so students can confidently treat any patient.</ns3:p>

MedEdPublishVol. 15
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Sex and Gender in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.