Submitted:
05 February 2024
Posted:
06 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Gender Sensitivity and Empathetic Behaviors
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Procedure
3.2. Materials
- 1)
- The Jefferson Scale of Empathy – JSE [14] is a widely used tool in medical education and research to measure empathy among healthcare professionals, particularly medical students, and physicians. The JSE consists of a self-report questionnaire that assesses an individual's perspective-taking ability, compassionate care, and the ability to understand and communicate with patients. It is designed to measure both cognitive and affective components of empathy and respondents rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a Likert scale.
- 2)
- Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale (N-GAMS) [15] is a psychometric tool developed to assess the level of gender awareness among medical professionals. The N-GAMS consists of a questionnaire that measures various dimensions of gender awareness, including knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to gender-sensitive healthcare. This scale is divided into three subscales: (1) gender sensitivity (GS): the degree to which health care professionals/medical students are sensitive and sympathetic to the impact of gender in medical practice (14 items); (2) gender-role ideology towards patients (GRIP): health care providers’ stereotypical views towards male and female patients (11 items); and (3) gender-role ideology towards doctors (GRID): health care providers’ stereotypical views towards male and female doctors (7 items). Answers are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 5 (“totally agree”).
3.3. Participants
3.4. Data analysis
4. Results
4.1. Empathy among medical students
4.2. Gender Sensitivity and Stereotypes
4.3. Correlation
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EpiCentro - Epidemiology for public health, Gender Medicine. Websource: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/gender-medicine/.
- Healy, B. (1991). The yentl syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine, 325(4), 274-276. [CrossRef]
- EpiCentro - Epidemiology for public health, Gender Medicine in Italy. Websource: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/gender-medicine/in-italy.
- Rrustemi, I., Locatelli, I., Schwarz, J., Lagro-Janssen, T., Fauvel, A., Clair, C. (2020). Gender awareness among medical students in a Swiss University. BMC Med Educ.;20(1):156. [CrossRef]
- Moretti-Pires, R. O., Guadagnin, L. I., Tesser-Júnior, Z. C., Campos, D. A. D., & Turatti, B. O. (2020). Prejudice Against Gender and Sexual Diversity among Medical Students from the 1 st to the 8 th Semesters of a Medical Course in Southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 43, 557-567. [CrossRef]
- Bert, F., Boietti, E., Rousset, S., et al. (2022). Gender sensitivity and stereotypes in medical university students: An Italian cross-sectional study. PLoS One;17(1):e0262324. [CrossRef]
- Bohnert, C.A., Combs, R.M., Noonan, E.J., Weathers, A.E., & Weingartner, L.A. (2021). Gender minorities in simulation: a mixed methods study of medical school standardized patient programs in the United States and Canada. Simulation in Healthcare, 16(6), e151-e158. [CrossRef]
- Laughey, W.F., Atkinson, J., Craig, A.M., Douglas, L., Brown, M.E., Scott, J.L., Alberti, H., Finn, G.M. (2021). Empathy in Medical Education: Its Nature and Nurture - a Qualitative Study of the Views of Students and Tutors. Med Sci Educ.;31(6):1941-1950. [CrossRef]
- King, A., Hoppe, R.B. (2013). “Best practice” for patient-centered communication: a narrative review. J Grad Med Educ.;5:385–393. [CrossRef]
- Howick, J., Moscrop, A., Mebius, A., Fanshawe, T.R., Lewith, G., Bishop, F.L., Mistiaen, P., Roberts, N.W., Dieninytė, E., Hu, X.Y., Aveyard, P. (2018). Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of MedicineHowick, J., Moscrop, A., Mebius, A., Fanshawe, T.R., Lewith, G., Bishop, F.L., Mistiaen, P., Roberts, N.W., Dieninytė, E., Hu, X.Y., Aveyard, P. (2018). Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 111(7):240–52.; 111(7):240–52. [CrossRef]
- Ha, J.F., Longnecker, N. (2010). Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner Journal;10(1):38–43.
- Lindsay, S., Rezai, M., Kolne, K., & Osten, V. (2019). Outcomes of gender-sensitivity educational interventions for healthcare providers: A systematic review. Health Education Journal, 78(8), 958-976. [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, M. R., Herrmann, A., Tashjian, A., Ramineni, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Raef, D., ... & Shatzer, J. (2016). Sex and gender in medical education: a national student survey. Biology of Sex Differences, 7(1), 25-35. [CrossRef]
- Hojat, M., DeSantis, J., Shannon, S. C., Mortensen, L. H., Speicher, M. R., Bragan, L., ... & Calabrese, L. H. (2018). The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a nationwide study of measurement properties, underlying components, latent variable structure, and national norms in medical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 23, 899-920.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-018-9839-9. [CrossRef]
- Verdonk, P., Benschop, Y. W., De Haes, H. C., & Lagro-Janssen, T. L. (2008). Medical students’ gender awareness: construction of the Nijmegen gender awareness in medicine scale (N-GAMS). Sex roles, 58, 222-234. [CrossRef]
- Berg, K., Blatt, B., Lopreiato, J., Jung, J., Schaeffer, A., Heil, D., ... & Hojat, M. (2015). Standardized patient assessment of medical student empathy: ethnicity and gender effects in a multi-institutional study. Academic Medicine, 90(1), 105-111. [CrossRef]
- Santos, M. A., Grosseman, S., Morelli, T. C., Giuliano, I. C., & Erdmann, T. R. (2016). Empathy differences by gender and specialty preference in medical students: a study in Brazil. International journal of medical education, 7, 149.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885636/. [CrossRef]
- Carpinelli, L., Navarra, M., & Savarese, G. (2023). Gender differences in medical students in relation to gender bias and sensitivity: analysis for the implementation of a gender medicine programme. The Italian Journal Of Gender-Specific Medicine, 9, 6-13. [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.E.L., Hunt, G.E.G., Hughes, F., Finn, G.M. (2020). 'Too male, too pale, too stale': a qualitative exploration of student experiences of gender bias within medical education. BMJ Open.;10(8):e039092. [CrossRef]
- Batt-Rawden, S.A., Chisolm, M.S., Anton, B., & Flickinger, T.E. (2013). Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review. Academic Medicine, 88(8), 1171-1177. [CrossRef]
- Costa-Drolon, E., Verneuil, L., Manolios, E., Revah-Levy, A., & Sibeoni, J. (2021). Medical students’ perspectives on empathy: a systematic review and metasynthesis. Academic medicine, 96(1), 142-154. [CrossRef]
- Italian National Institute of Health, Guidelines for the use of Narrative Medicine in the clinical-assistance setting for rare and chronic-degenerative diseases". Websourse: https://www.medicinanarrativa.network/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Quaderno_n._7_02_CONSENSUS-CONF-FINALE_compressed.pdf.
- Bartz, D., Chitnis, T., Kaiser, U.B., et al. (2020). Clinical Advances in Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine to Improve the Health of All: A Review. JAMA Intern Med.;180(4):574–583. [CrossRef]
| Variables | Factor 1 - perspective-taking |
Factor 2 - compassionate care |
Factor 3 - walking in patient’s shoes |
JSE score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male Female 3° years 5° years |
51.26±11.84 52.72±11.88 52.57±11.76 50.15±12.05 |
19.93±7.61 17.57±6.09 18.87±7.18 18.61±6.53 |
3.56±1.39 3.38±1.34 3.47±1.40 3.47±1.27 |
77.29±12.38 75.91±10.39 77.35±11.46 74.49±11.33 |
| Variables | Gender sensitivity (GS) |
Gender role ideology towards patients (GRIP) |
Gender role ideology towards doctors (GRID) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male Female 3° years 5° years |
2.67±0.68 2.37±0.48 2.57±0.62 2.42±0.57 |
2±0.88 1.59±0.61 1.77±0.79 1.90±0.78 |
1.88±0.89 1.64±0.63 1.77±0.81 1.75±0.74 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).