Search

Background: Historically, medical research has, outside of reproductive health, neglected the health needs of women. Medical studies have previously excluded female participants, meaning research data have been collected from males and generalized to females. Knowledge gained from research is translated to clinical education and patient care, and female exclusion may result in gaps in the medical school curricula and textbooks. Materials and Methods: This study involved a desktop review of the Australian Medical Council Standards for assessment and accreditation of primary medical programs, the online publicly available Australian medical school course outlines, and finally, an analysis of the recommended textbooks. Results: There is no fixed or explicit requirement to include women's health in Australian medical school curricula. Medical school course outlines do not adequately include women's health; similarly, clinical medicine textbooks do not account for sex and gender differences. Conclusion: Important sex and gender differences in medicine are not reflected adequately in the medical school course outlines, curricula, or clinical textbooks. This may have significant consequences on women's health.

Background: The androcentric history of medicine and medical research has led to an ongoing sex and gender gap in health research and education. Sex and gender gaps in research and education may translate into real-life health inequities for women. This study aimed to explore the experiences of female patients with chronic health conditions in the Australian health system, considering existing sex and gender gaps in medicine. Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured in-depth interviews with a sample of adult women with chronic conditions in Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken, guided by Braun and Clarke. Software NVivoX64 assisted in the management of the data. Coding was performed before grouping into subthemes and central themes. To allow for potential researcher biases, the principal researcher engaged in the practice of reflexivity, including the writing of detailed notes during analysis. Results: Twenty adult Australian women with chronic conditions were interviewed. Diagnoses were varied and included Ehlers?Danlos syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, functional neurological disorder, and inflammatory bowel disease. Four central themes emerged: diagnostic difficulties; spectrum of health care experiences; understanding medical complexity; and coping with symptoms. Conclusions: Women with chronic conditions in Australia report pain, fatigue, and suffering that significantly impacts upon their daily lives. There was a shared experience of feeling that the pain and suffering of women was dismissed or not taken seriously. Many women expressed trauma because of their experiences in health care and often this led to a fear of accessing health services. The participants highlighted a need for more knowledge, understanding, and empathy from health care practitioners.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) dates back to 19th-century Paris and started out as a new paradigm for practicing medicine, with the aim of replacing anecdote with high-quality evidence from positivist-style research. Despite the clear logic underpinning EBM, there have been numerous criticisms, including maintenance of an archaic view of evidence as ?facts,? failure to acknowledge that all research is underpinned by the beliefs of the researcher, and the simple fact that medical research has historically been androcentric and results generalized to female patients. In this essay, we discuss the criticisms of EBM, with a focus on feminist critiques based on three central feminist epistemologies: feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and social constructivism. We argue that EBM potentially perpetuates gaps in women's health and advocate for incorporating feminist epistemologies into future medical research to garner further understanding of social influences on women's health. In addition, we argue that EBM may degrade the clinical acumen and that critical thinking should become a key component of medical school curricula.

Background: The diagnosis of chronic conditions in women is complicated by the historical androcentricity in medical research. Sex and gender gaps in health research may translate to unequal healthcare for women. This cross-sectional survey study aimed to ascertain the median time to diagnosis, proportions of rediagnosis and time to rediagnosis for Australian women with chronic conditions. Methods: An online survey collected anonymous data from voluntary participants. Data were analyzed using Stata14. Cox Proportional Hazards model was used to analyze time to diagnosis and rediagnosis. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the significance of rediagnosis rates by diagnosis, age at diagnosis, income, employment, state of residence, disability status, and Indigenous status. Results: The median time from first appointment to initial diagnosis was 6 months (range 1 day?50 years) (interquartile range [IQR] 3.74 years). The median time to rediagnosis was 4 years (IQR 9) with a range of 1 day?43 years. Almost half of the women (n?=?161/343, 47%) reported their primary condition being rediagnosed. From the complete responses, 40% were rediagnosed from one organic condition to another organic condition, however, 32% of women originally diagnosed with psychological, medically unexplained syndromes, or chronic pain were later rediagnosed with organic conditions. Conclusion: Median wait times for a diagnosis for women in Australia, when factoring in high rates of rediagnosis and time to rediagnosis, was 4 years. It is important that clinicians are aware of the high rediagnosis rates in female patients with chronic conditions and understand the potential impact of systemic biases on the diagnostic process for women under their care.

Introduction: Historically, medical studies have underrepresented female participants and most research data have been collected from males and generalized to other genders. This article aims to determine if there is a sex and/or gender gap in recent Australian health research. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study of the published literature examines recent Australian-based clinical trials for inclusion of sex and gender. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were calculated for study sample sizes and female:male representation. Proportion of sex and/or gender was analyzed by the clinical specialty of the trials. t-Tests were used to ascertain significance of any difference in recruitment of female and males. Results: A total of 88 articles were included in the analysis. Most studies (n?=?63) were randomized clinical controlled trials. Overall women constituted 55% (IQR 30% of all participants). Of the 71 mixed-sex studies, only 8.9% (n?=?7) analyzed the data by sex. Women were significantly underrepresented in cardiology and nephrology studies and overrepresented in psychiatry, care of the elderly, and orthopedic studies. Conclusions: When analyzed by specialty, women are overrepresented in specialties considered to be female patient dominated, such as psychiatry and care of the elderly, and underrepresented in specialties such as cardiology and nephrology. The overrepresentation of women in some specialties can reinforce gender stereotypes, potentially harming women. In addition, exclusion of males from these areas of research may be of disservice to men's health.

Background: Historically, medical studies have excluded female participants and research data have been collected from males and generalized to females. The gender gap in medical research, alongside overarching misogyny, results in real-life disadvantages for female patients. This systematic scoping review of the literature aims to determine the extent of research into the medical research sex and gender gap and to assess the extent of misogyny, if any, in modern medical research. Methods: Initial literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Science Direct, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. Articles published between January 01, 2009, and December 31, 2019, were included. An article was deemed to display misogyny if it discussed the female aesthetic in terms of health, but did not measure health or could not be utilized to improve clinical practice. Results: Of the 17 included articles, 12 examined the gender gap in medical research and 5 demonstrated misogyny, assessing female attractiveness for alleged medical reasons. Females remain broadly under-represented in the medical literature, sex and gender are poorly reported and inadequately analyzed in research, and misogynistic perceptions continue to permeate the narrative. Conclusion: The gender gap and misogynistic studies remain present in the contemporary medical literature. Reasons and implications for practice are discussed.