Table 4.

Comparison of education on LGBT content between Japan, the USA and Canada, and Australia and New Zealand

		Japan	USA and Canada14	Australia and New Zealand15
Number of responders/total number of schools (proportion)		59/82 (72%)	132/176 (75%)	15/21 (71%)
Methods of teaching LGBT content		n (proportion)
LGBT-specific content in the required preclinical curriculum†	Interspersed	19 (32.8%)	88 (66.7%)*	9 (60.0%)
	Discrete modules	11 (19.0%)	32 (24.2%)	5 (33.3%)
Lectures or small-group sessions in the required clinical curriculum‡		12 (20.3%)	79 (59.8%)*	2/1¶¶ (13.3%/6.7%)
Clinical clerkship site that is specifically designed to facilitate LGBT patient care§	Required clerkship	0 (0.0%)	7 (5.3%)	5*** (33.3%)
	Elective clerkship	0 (0.0%)	12 (9.1%)**	7*** (46.7%)
Faculty development for teaching about LGBT health¶		5 (8.5%)	27 (20.5%)	0 (0.0%)
Coverage of LGBT content		n (proportion)
Asking about same-sex relations when obtaining sexual history**		13 (22.0%)	128 (97.0%)*	12 (80.0%)
Teaching difference between behaviour and identity††		17 (28.8%)	95 (72.0%)*	10 (66.7%)
At least half of 16 LGBT-related topics covered in elective or required curriculum‡‡		15 (29.4%)	99 (75.0%)*	–
Evaluation of coverage of LGBT content (very poor/poor)§§		45 (79.0%)	34 (25.8%)*	3 (20.0%)

Items on methods of teaching LGBT content and coverage of LGBT content were cited from or corresponding to questions 2–5, and 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the questionnaire by Obedin-Maliver et al.¹⁴

*P<0.01; **p<0.05 for comparison of the proportions of schools that answered yes between Japan and USA/Canada.

†Number of respondents answering ‘Do not know’/missing value among Japanese responses: 3/1

‡11/0

§0/0

¶4/0

**17/0

††10/0

‡‡0/8

§§3/2

¶¶Two schools had lectures and one had small-group sessions. Sanchez et al asked separately about lectures and small-group sessions.¹⁵

***Two schools had clinical rotation site as a required clinical rotation, four as an elective and three as both.¹⁵

LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.