Katarina Hamberg1, Marie-Louise Larsson. 1. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. katarina.hamberg@fammed.umu.se
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given decisions to implement a gender perspective in medical education, this study investigated gender perspective in written cases used at a Swedish medical school. METHOD: All course organizers on terms 5-11 were asked to submit the case descriptions used in 2005. The 257 cases collected were subjected to content analysis focussing on sex of author and patient; whether there were any guidelines for tutors; and whether the case touched on biological sex differences, psychosocial and gender aspects. RESULTS: The majority of cases were written by male teachers. The proportions of male and female patients were equal. There were instructions for tutors in 20% of the cases. Sex differences were mentioned in 7% of cases. Psychosocial data were meager. Ten cases (4%) contained gender aspects and four of them presented gender as a main issue. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of instructions for tutors and overall scant interest in psychosocial issues were important obstacles for gender implementation. Actually, ignoring psychosocial conditions means that a gender perspective is also neglected. The results illuminate the importance of monitoring and follow-ups for a successful implementation of gender. Our method of scrutinizing written cases might be useful also for other medical schools.
OBJECTIVE: Given decisions to implement a gender perspective in medical education, this study investigated gender perspective in written cases used at a Swedish medical school. METHOD: All course organizers on terms 5-11 were asked to submit the case descriptions used in 2005. The 257 cases collected were subjected to content analysis focussing on sex of author and patient; whether there were any guidelines for tutors; and whether the case touched on biological sex differences, psychosocial and gender aspects. RESULTS: The majority of cases were written by male teachers. The proportions of male and female patients were equal. There were instructions for tutors in 20% of the cases. Sex differences were mentioned in 7% of cases. Psychosocial data were meager. Ten cases (4%) contained gender aspects and four of them presented gender as a main issue. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of instructions for tutors and overall scant interest in psychosocial issues were important obstacles for gender implementation. Actually, ignoring psychosocial conditions means that a gender perspective is also neglected. The results illuminate the importance of monitoring and follow-ups for a successful implementation of gender. Our method of scrutinizing written cases might be useful also for other medical schools.