Nicholas Tollemache1, Duncan Shrewsbury1, Carrie Llewellyn2. 1. Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Sussex, Brighton, BN19PU, UK. 2. Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Sussex, Brighton, BN19PU, UK. c.d.llewellyn@bsms.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) individuals are more likely to have negative healthcare experiences and worse health outcomes when compared with their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. A key recommendation of the 2018 Stonewall-commissioned "LGBT in Britain" report was that the curricula, standards, and training provided by medical schools should be reviewed in order to encompass mandatory teaching about LGBT health inequalities and discrimination, LGBT-inclusive care and the use of appropriate language. The aim of our study was to conduct an in-depth national review of the content of LGBT teaching within the curricula of UK Medical Schools. METHODS: Course leads at all 37 UK Medical Schools with students currently enrolled in a primary undergraduate medical training course were asked between December 2019-March 2020 to complete a cross-sectional online survey comprised of 30 questions; divided into three sections relating to the current LGBT teaching (Part 1), any planned or future LGBT teaching (Part 2), and the opinions of the survey respondent about the coverage of LGBT topics (Part 3) at their institution. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 19/37 institutions (response rate: 51%). The median estimated number of hours of LGBT-teaching across the entire undergraduate course was 11.0 (IQR: 12.25). Teaching on LGBT mental health, gender identity, sexual orientation, awareness of LGBT-health inequalities, and LGBT discrimination in healthcare were reported by almost all respondents, whilst maternity and childbirth, chronic disease and LGBT adolescent health were least represented within the curriculum. Almost all (18 medical schools; 95%) responding institutions were considering implementing new LGBT teaching within the next three academic years. A lack of space within the curriculum is a universally reported barrier to the implementation of LGBT teaching. Only 5 (26%) survey respondents consider their institution's current coverage of LGBT topics to be "Good" or "Very good". CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a significant variation in the amount and breadth of content within the undergraduate curricula of UK medical schools. Recommendations for increasing the quantity and quality of LGBT content are provided, based upon areas of good practice.
BACKGROUND: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) individuals are more likely to have negative healthcare experiences and worse health outcomes when compared with their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. A key recommendation of the 2018 Stonewall-commissioned "LGBT in Britain" report was that the curricula, standards, and training provided by medical schools should be reviewed in order to encompass mandatory teaching about LGBT health inequalities and discrimination, LGBT-inclusive care and the use of appropriate language. The aim of our study was to conduct an in-depth national review of the content of LGBT teaching within the curricula of UK Medical Schools. METHODS: Course leads at all 37 UK Medical Schools with students currently enrolled in a primary undergraduate medical training course were asked between December 2019-March 2020 to complete a cross-sectional online survey comprised of 30 questions; divided into three sections relating to the current LGBT teaching (Part 1), any planned or future LGBT teaching (Part 2), and the opinions of the survey respondent about the coverage of LGBT topics (Part 3) at their institution. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Questionnaires were received from 19/37 institutions (response rate: 51%). The median estimated number of hours of LGBT-teaching across the entire undergraduate course was 11.0 (IQR: 12.25). Teaching on LGBT mental health, gender identity, sexual orientation, awareness of LGBT-health inequalities, and LGBT discrimination in healthcare were reported by almost all respondents, whilst maternity and childbirth, chronic disease and LGBT adolescent health were least represented within the curriculum. Almost all (18 medical schools; 95%) responding institutions were considering implementing new LGBT teaching within the next three academic years. A lack of space within the curriculum is a universally reported barrier to the implementation of LGBT teaching. Only 5 (26%) survey respondents consider their institution's current coverage of LGBT topics to be "Good" or "Very good". CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a significant variation in the amount and breadth of content within the undergraduate curricula of UK medical schools. Recommendations for increasing the quantity and quality of LGBT content are provided, based upon areas of good practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health inequalities; Healthcare; Inclusion; LGBTQ+ / lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer; Medical education; Sexual orientation
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julian A Sanchez; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Giang T Nguyen; B Lee Green; Peter A Kanetsky; Matthew B Schabath Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Hannah Brooks; Carrie D Llewellyn; Tom Nadarzynski; Fernando Castilho Pelloso; Felipe De Souza Guilherme; Alex Pollard; Christina J Jones Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Catherine H Mercer; Clare Tanton; Philip Prah; Bob Erens; Pam Sonnenberg; Soazig Clifton; Wendy Macdowall; Ruth Lewis; Nigel Field; Jessica Datta; Andrew J Copas; Andrew Phelps; Kaye Wellings; Anne M Johnson Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Coleman; A E Radix; W P Bouman; G R Brown; A L C de Vries; M B Deutsch; R Ettner; L Fraser; M Goodman; J Green; A B Hancock; T W Johnson; D H Karasic; G A Knudson; S F Leibowitz; H F L Meyer-Bahlburg; S J Monstrey; J Motmans; L Nahata; T O Nieder; S L Reisner; C Richards; L S Schechter; V Tangpricha; A C Tishelman; M A A Van Trotsenburg; S Winter; K Ducheny; N J Adams; T M Adrián; L R Allen; D Azul; H Bagga; K Başar; D S Bathory; J J Belinky; D R Berg; J U Berli; R O Bluebond-Langner; M-B Bouman; M L Bowers; P J Brassard; J Byrne; L Capitán; C J Cargill; J M Carswell; S C Chang; G Chelvakumar; T Corneil; K B Dalke; G De Cuypere; E de Vries; M Den Heijer; A H Devor; C Dhejne; A D'Marco; E K Edmiston; L Edwards-Leeper; R Ehrbar; D Ehrensaft; J Eisfeld; E Elaut; L Erickson-Schroth; J L Feldman; A D Fisher; M M Garcia; L Gijs; S E Green; B P Hall; T L D Hardy; M S Irwig; L A Jacobs; A C Janssen; K Johnson; D T Klink; B P C Kreukels; L E Kuper; E J Kvach; M A Malouf; R Massey; T Mazur; C McLachlan; S D Morrison; S W Mosser; P M Neira; U Nygren; J M Oates; J Obedin-Maliver; G Pagkalos; J Patton; N Phanuphak; K Rachlin; T Reed; G N Rider; J Ristori; S Robbins-Cherry; S A Roberts; K A Rodriguez-Wallberg; S M Rosenthal; K Sabir; J D Safer; A I Scheim; L J Seal; T J Sehoole; K Spencer; C St Amand; T D Steensma; J F Strang; G B Taylor; K Tilleman; G G T'Sjoen; L N Vala; N M Van Mello; J F Veale; J A Vencill; B Vincent; L M Wesp; M A West; J Arcelus Journal: Int J Transgend Health Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: Jason van Heesewijk; Alex Kent; Tim C van de Grift; Alex Harleman; Maaike Muntinga Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Gerrit Brandt; Jule Stobrawe; Sophia Korte; Livia Prüll; Nora M Laskowski; Georg Halbeisen; Georgios Paslakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 4.614