You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original article
Evaluation of a gender-affirming healthcare curriculum for second-year medical students
  1. Hale Thompson1,
  2. Jennifer A Coleman2,
  3. Ravi M Iyengar3,
  4. Shay Phillips4,
  5. Paul M Kent4,
  6. Neeral Sheth2
  1. 1Department of Psychiatry, Section on Population Behavioral Health, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  2. 2Department of Psychiatry, Road Home Program, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  3. 3Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  4. 4Department of Medicine, Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hale Thompson, Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; Hale_Thompson{at}rush.edu

Abstract

Background Transgender medicine is an emergent subfield with clearly identified educational gaps.

Aims This manuscript evaluates a gender-affirming healthcare curriculum for second-year medical (M2) students.

Methods Students received a survey assessing Gender Identity Competency in terms of skills, knowledge and attitudes regarding transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) issues. The authors administered the survey before and after the delivery of the curriculum. The curriculum included five online modules, a quiz, a 3-hour case-based workshop and a 2-hour interactive patient-provider panel.

Results Approximately 60% of M2 students (n=77) completed both preassessments and postassessments. The following showed a statistically significant improvement from preassessment to postassessment: student Gender Identity Competency, t(76) = −11.07, p<0.001; skills, t(76) = −15.22, p<0.001; and self-reported knowledge, t(76) = −4.36, p<0.001. Negative attitudes did not differ (p=0.378). Interest in TGNC issues beyond healthcare settings did not change (p=0.334). M2 students reported a significant change in experience role-playing chosen pronouns in a clinical setting, t(76) = −8.95, p<0.001.

Conclusions The curriculum improved students’ gender-affirming medical competency, knowledge and skills. The development of a sustained, longitudinal curriculum is recommended in addition to the continuing education of faculty to reinforce this expanding knowledge and skills base and to address discomfort working with this population.

  • education & training (see medical education & training)
  • transgender
  • gender non-conforming
  • healthcare curriculum
  • attitudes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-136683

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors HT: was the lead author and responsible for obtaining approval from the Rush Institutional Review Board; in addition to writing the introduction and discussion, he contributed to the methods and results; also identified the course assessment instrument in the literature, obtained permission to use it, and contributed to the adaptation of it for the curriculum; also designed and implemented the panel portion of the curriculum and served as a subject matter expert on the cases designed and implemented in the workshops. JAC: adapted the assessment for this curriculum and conducted the analysis of the preassessment and postassessment survey; wrote up the results and contributed to the methods and the discussion sections. RI: designed and implemented the medical management portions of the didactic content of the curriculum; also offered feedback on the draft manuscript. SP: served as a subject matter expert on the cases designed and implemented for the workshop portion of the curriculum. Ze also implemented the preassessment and postassessments with students, provided feedback on and assisted in facilitation of the patient-provider panel, and provided feedback on the draft manuscript. PMK: advocated for the expansion of this curriculum and facilitated the implementation of various new components as well as the older component, the patient-provider panel; also offered feedback on the draft manuscript. NS: designed and implemented the health disparities, cultural competency, social determinants and mental health portions of the didactic content of the curriculum; advocated for the inclusion of the gender-affirming workshop and oversaw its design and implementation; contributed to the methods section and provided feedback on the other sections of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval The Rush University Institutional Review Board approved the study.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.