Dataset Information

Development and initial Experience of an online Exchange Platform on Sex and Gender Aspects in Medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki".

ABSTRACT: Goal: Knowledge about sex/gender aspects in medicine is often lacking, even though this serves as base for individualized patient-centered care. Thus we developed an online exchange platform on sex and gender aspects in medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki" [www.gendermed-wiki.de]. This was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; FKZ: 01FP1506). Our goal is to facilitate the integration of sex and gender in all areas of medicine. Therefore we evaluated if "GenderMed-Wiki" is suitable to provide knowledge on sex and gender aspects in medicine adequately. Methods: Qualitative evaluation of "GenderMed-Wiki" was done 6 months after project start by 4 focus groups with a total of 30 participants (students, lecturers, physicians, and the public). The discussions in each focus group were minuted, requirements pooled and new categories derived inductively. After further optimization of the platform a quantitative survey was done by an online questionnaire (SoSci Survey). 149 students of the medical faculties of Muenster and Duisburg-Essen (as well as students of dentistry from the medical faculty of Muenster) participated (return rate of 3.3%). Evaluation of the content of the articles was done by assessing three professional articles: Sex/gender and medicine (both study courses medicine and dentistry), depression (medicine only) and periodontitis (dentistry only). The results were reported in relative and absolute frequencies and associations were assessed by Chi-Quadrat-tests. Results: Four categories which needed further optimization were deducted from the responses given by our focus groups prior to evaluation: aspects related to content, technical requirements, usability of the platform and legal challenges. Most of the students found "GenderMed-Wiki" to be informative, however they didn´t think it to be relevant for their current studies. In contrast, many thought that the platform may be useful when working as physicians. Students who reported that topics related to sex and gender were not of importance to them, evaluated the platform more neutrally and answered questions related to sex/gender in depression more often incorrectly. Conclusions: Focus groups are a useful approach to identify necessary changes in projects in a systematic way. After further optimizations, "GenderMed-Wiki" seems to be suitable to facilitate the integration of sex/gender into medical teachings. It is of importance, however, to change the attitude of students towards sex/gender sensitive medicine (e.g. by integration into the medical curriculum), since this influences strongly how this platform is perceived and how someone deals with its contents.

SUBMITTER: Schreitmuller J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6120162 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and initial Experience of an online Exchange Platform on Sex and Gender Aspects in Medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki".

Schreitmüller Julia J Becker Jan C JC Zsebedits Daniel D Weskott Marvin M Dehghan-Nayyeri Mahboobeh M Fegeler Christian C Heue Matthias M Hochleitner Margarethe M Kindler-Röhrborn Andrea A Pfleiderer Bettina B

GMS journal for medical education 20180815 3

<b>Goal:</b> Knowledge about sex/gender aspects in medicine is often lacking, even though this serves as base for individualized patient-centered care. Thus we developed an online exchange platform on sex and gender aspects in medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki" [www.gendermed-wiki.de]. This was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; FKZ: 01FP1506). Our goal is to facilitate the integration of sex and gender in all areas of medicine. Therefore we evaluated if "GenderMed-Wi ...[more]

PMID: 30186942

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOnline physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician.ObjectiveThis study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender.MethodsA total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender).ResultsFemale reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers.ConclusionsThis work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients' choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews.

Dataset Information

Development and initial Experience of an online Exchange Platform on Sex and Gender Aspects in Medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki".

Publications

Development and initial Experience of an online Exchange Platform on Sex and Gender Aspects in Medicine: "GenderMed-Wiki".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets