Abstract
Digital technologies play an essential role in the medical sector of today and the future. In a cross-sectional online survey at a German medical university, male students more frequently reported keeping themselves informed about digital medicine outside of their studies across all clinical years of study. While female students self-assessed their knowledge in different fields of digital medicine as worse than their male peers in the first clinical years of study, no more gender differences could be found towards the final year. However, students of both genders showed a strong desire for further education on the topic of digital medicine.
Keywords: Medical education, Digital medicine, Digital literacy, Curriculum, Wearables
Background
Digital technologies are an essential part of today’s medicine and will continue to play an increasingly important role in the future. Expanding digitalization is expected to provide better patient care through more precise, personalized, and accessible medicine at higher efficiency and lower costs [1–6]. Digital medicine should not replace the personal interaction with patients, but rather reinforce it by eliminating repetitive work and the use of digital communication methods [7–9]. In this digital transformation process, however, also new challenges arise [1, 4, 10, 11]. Current and future healthcare professionals play a central role in this digitalization process, making it essential to address new digital technologies and digital literacy in medical school [12–15].
At individual universities, teaching projects about digital medicine have been very well received by students [16–18]. However, a comprehensive thematization of the new technological possibilities as well as the accompanying challenges in medical studies has been lacking so far, although this is increasingly demanded [13, 15, 19]. Recently, a study showed that medical students across Europe perceived a lack of digital health literacy [20].
A study at an Austrian medical university found that female medical students reported a significantly worse knowledge regarding medical information and communication technologies as well as telemedicine [21]. Additionally, social psychological models have previously suggested that men are less fearful of using mobile technologies than women and show a greater willingness to use them in the medical context [22]. Gender differences have been described in multiple aspects of physicians’ daily life [23–26]. Currently, the issue of gender sensitivity in teaching gets more and more attention [27–32]. However, to our knowledge, potential gender differences among medical students regarding digital medicine and their desire for further training in this field have not yet been investigated. As digital medicine is the future, insights into possible gender-related differences in this field are indispensable. This knowledge should help include teaching on digital medicine in the medical curriculum in the best possible way to best prepare all future physicians for the ongoing digitalization in the medical field.
Activity
We performed a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional, explorative study among medical students in the clinical semesters at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). It was developed by members of the TUM Medical Education Center in a multi-step process to obtain face validity with the aim to help assess the students’ needs and wishes regarding digital health literacy, as an elective course to this topic should be established. The questionnaire was created using the software EvaSys (Evaluationssysteme GmbH, Lueneburg, Germany) and was available online from July 30 to August 17, 2020. All students in the clinical semesters (corresponding to the last 4 years of the 6-year study course in Germany) at TUM were invited to participate by e-mail and reminded once.
In the anonymous survey, participants were asked about their gender, age, and clinical year of study (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or final year) in German. In addition, students were asked about their opinions, self-assessment, and desire for further education regarding different topics of digital medicine using 5-point Likert-type scales as well as organizational preferences for the planned elective course (data not shown).
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Differences were calculated using Mann–Whitney U tests. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for reliability analysis. Data are given as means and standard deviations (SD) or medians and interquartile range (IQR). A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Results
Out of 1574 medical students invited to participate, 218 students completed the survey (response rate 13.9%). Of these, 139 identified themselves as female (63.8%), 78 as male (35.8%), and 1 as diverse (0.5%), corresponding to the general gender distribution among medical students at TUM. Mean age was 24.7 years (SD 3.5 years), and students from all clinical years participated (23.4% in the 1st, 30.3% in the 2nd, 22.5% in the 3rd, and 22.9% in the final year).
Table 1 shows the gender-specific responses of the medical students about their opinions on the topic of digital technologies in medicine. Most students of both genders equally believed that medicine will be fundamentally changed by new digital opportunities in the next few years. More than a quarter of the students rather or fully agreed with the statement that they fear the digital challenges in the medical profession. Male students found it more important to be able to question the results of innovative digital technologies (p < 0.01). While 21.8% of the male students fully or rather agree that they feel well prepared for the digital challenges in their future profession, this was the case for just 11.5% of female students (p < 0.05). Men were also significantly more likely to report to keep themselves informed about digital medicine outside of their studies (p < 0.001) and to find it important to be informed about the current possibilities and perspectives of digital medicine (p < 0.05). However, most students wanted to use innovative digital technologies in their future medical profession, with a higher degree of approval among male students (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Opinions regarding digital technologies in medicine, stratified by gender
| I do not agree = 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | I fully agree = 5 | p | Mean | Median | SD | IQR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I believe that new digital technologies will fundamentally change medicine in the next few years | ||||||||||
| m | 2.6% | 7.7% | 12.8% | 32.1% | 44.9% | 0.195 | 4.09 | 4 | 1.06 | 1.0 |
| f | 0.7% | 3.0% | 10.8% | 33.8% | 51.1% | 4.31 | 5 | 0.86 | 1.0 | |
| I fear the digital challenges in the medical profession, e.g., regarding data protection | ||||||||||
| m | 19.7% | 40.8% | 14.5% | 13.2% | 11.8% | 0.068 | 2.57 | 2 | 1.28 | 1.8 |
| f | 15.1% | 27.3% | 22.3% | 27.3% | 7.9% | 286 | 3 | 1.21 | 2.0 | |
| To me, it is important to be able to question the results of innovative digital technologies | ||||||||||
| m | 1.3% | 3.9% | 7.8% | 26.0% | 61.0% | 0.004** | 4.42 | 5 | 0.89 | 1.0 |
| f | 2.2% | 5.8% | 17.3% | 33.8% | 41.0% | 4.06 | 4 | 1.01 | 2.0 | |
| Overall, I feel well prepared for the digital challenges I will face in the medical profession | ||||||||||
| m | 21.8% | 19.2% | 37.2% | 12.8% | 9.0% | 0.020* | 2.68 | 3 | 1.21 | 1.0 |
| f | 16.7% | 48.6% | 23.2% | 10.1% | 1.4% | 2.31 | 2 | 0.92 | 1.0 | |
| To me, it is important to be informed about the current possibilities and perspectives of digital medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 1.3% | 2.6% | 3.8% | 32.1% | 60.3% | 0.022* | 4.47 | 5 | 0.80 | 1.0 |
| f | 0.7% | 2.2% | 13.0% | 39.1% | 44.9% | 4.25 | 4 | 0.82 | 1.0 | |
| Outside of my studies, I keep myself informed about digital medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 12.8% | 25.6% | 20.5% | 20.5% | 20.5% | < 0.001*** | 3.10 | 3 | 1.34 | 2.0 |
| f | 35.3% | 28.1% | 21.6% | 10.8% | 4.3% | 2.21 | 2 | 1.16 | 2.0 | |
| I want to actively use innovative digital technology in my future medical profession | ||||||||||
| m | 3.8% | 0.0% | 11.5% | 33.3% | 51.3% | 0.021* | 4.28 | 5 | 0.95 | 1.0 |
| f | 0.7% | 2.2% | 20.9% | 41.7% | 34.5% | 4.07 | 4 | 0.84 | 1.0 | |
Difference between genders: Mann–Whitney U tests
m male, f female, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Table 2 shows the responses on self-assessed knowledge and desire for further education about digital technologies in medicine. Both subscales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha for self-assessment = 0.804, for the desire for further education = 0.843). While 38.5% of male students self-reported their knowledge about medical wearables and apps as very good or good, this was the case for 10.8% of females (overall p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found regarding digital communication methods (p < 0.05), robotics (p < 0.01), and digital processes in patient management (p < 0.05). Most students, irrespective of gender, indicated a strong desire for further education in the context of their studies in all the surveyed areas of digital medicine.
Table 2.
Self-assessment and desire for further education regarding digital technologies in medicine, stratified by gender
| I assess my knowledge of … in medicine as follows | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very bad = 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Very good = 5 | p | Mean | Median | SD | IQR | |
| Artificial intelligence | ||||||||||
| m | 12.8% | 33.3% | 29.5% | 17.9% | 6.4% | 0.201 | 2.72 | 3 | 1.10 | 1.3 |
| f | 12.9% | 39.6% | 33.1% | 12.9% | 1.4% | 2.50 | 2 | 0.93 | 1.0 | |
| Information management | ||||||||||
| m | 9.0% | 29.5% | 34.6% | 17.9% | 9.0% | 0.060 | 2.88 | 3 | 1.09 | 2.0 |
| f | 12.9% | 36.0% | 34.5% | 11.5% | 5.0% | 2.60 | 3 | 1.02 | 1.0 | |
| Digital communication methods | ||||||||||
| m | 7.7% | 24.4% | 20.5% | 34.6% | 12.8% | 0.028* | 3.21 | 3 | 1.18 | 2.0 |
| f | 10.1% | 29.5% | 30.9% | 23.7% | 5.8% | 2.86 | 3 | 1.07 | 2.0 | |
| Data protection and IT security | ||||||||||
| m | 23.1% | 34.6% | 24.4% | 6.4% | 11.5% | 0.153 | 2.49 | 2 | 1.25 | 1.0 |
| f | 25.9% | 40.3% | 25.2% | 6.5% | 2.2% | 2.19 | 2 | 0.97 | 2.0 | |
| Wearables and apps | ||||||||||
| m | 10.3% | 23.1% | 28.2% | 29.5% | 9.0% | < 0.001*** | 3.04 | 3 | 1.14 | 2.0 |
| f | 28.1% | 33.8% | 27.3% | 10.1% | 0.7% | 2.22 | 2 | 0.99 | 2.0 | |
| Robotics | ||||||||||
| m | 17.9% | 28.2% | 21.8% | 29.5% | 2.6% | 0.002** | 2.71 | 3 | 1.15 | 2.0 |
| f | 30.2% | 31.7% | 25.2% | 12.9% | 0.0% | 2.21 | 2 | 1.02 | 2.0 | |
| I do not agree = 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | I fully agree = 5 | p | Mean | Median | SD | IQR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel sufficiently informed about ethical issues regarding the digitalization of medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 11.5% | 34.6% | 26.9% | 16.7% | 10.3% | 0.280 | 2.79 | 3 | 1.17 | 2.0 |
| f | 18.2% | 32.1% | 24.8% | 21.9% | 2.9% | 2.59 | 2 | 1.11 | 1.5 | |
| I have sufficient knowledge about digital processes in patient management | ||||||||||
| m | 20.5% | 33.3% | 29.5% | 12.8% | 3.8% | 0.047* | 2.46 | 2 | 1.08 | 1.0 |
| f | 29.5% | 33.1% | 31.7% | 5.8% | 0.0% | 2.14 | 2 | 0.91 | 2.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about the use of artificial intelligence in medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 1.3% | 3.9% | 11.7% | 29.9% | 53.2% | 0.133 | 4.30 | 5 | 0.92 | 1.0 |
| f | 0.7% | 7.2% | 10.1% | 41.3% | 40.6% | 4.14 | 4 | 0.92 | 1.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about wearables and apps in medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 6.5% | 7.8% | 15.6% | 32.5% | 37.7% | 0.509 | 3.87 | 4 | 1.20 | 2.0 |
| f | 1.4% | 10.1% | 18.1% | 42.0% | 28.3% | 3.86 | 4 | 0.99 | 2.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about information management | ||||||||||
| m | 2.6% | 5.3% | 19.7% | 35.5% | 36.8% | 0.681 | 3.99 | 4 | 1.01 | 2.0 |
| f | 0.7% | 7.3% | 17.5% | 43.8% | 30.7% | 3.96 | 4 | 0.92 | 2.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about digital communication methods | ||||||||||
| m | 7.8% | 7.8% | 16.9% | 37.7% | 29.9% | 0.379 | 3.74 | 4 | 1.20 | 2.0 |
| f | 2.9% | 10.1% | 10.1% | 46.4% | 30.4% | 3.91 | 4 | 1.04 | 1.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about data protection and IT security | ||||||||||
| m | 3.9% | 16.9% | 22.1% | 23.4% | 33.8% | 0.539 | 3.66 | 4 | 1.22 | 2.0 |
| f | 5.1% | 8.0% | 21.0% | 35.5% | 30.4% | 3,78 | 4 | 1,12 | 2,0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about the use of robotics in medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 2.6% | 9.2% | 9.2% | 26.3% | 52.6% | 0.130 | 4.17 | 5 | 1.10 | 1.0 |
| f | 1.4% | 8.0% | 19.6% | 30.4% | 40.6% | 4.01 | 4 | 1.03 | 2.0 | |
| In my studies, I would like to learn more about ethical aspects of the digitalization of medicine | ||||||||||
| m | 7.8% | 9.1% | 14.3% | 32.5% | 36.4% | 0.498 | 3.81 | 4 | 1.25 | 2.0 |
| f | 2.90% | 10.1% | 16.7% | 29.7% | 40.6% | 3.95 | 4 | 1.12 | 2.0 | |
Difference between genders: Mann–Whitney U tests
m male, f female, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
*p < 0.05’ **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Interestingly, subjective differences to prior knowledge were most evident in the first clinical years of study. Female students in the first year estimated their knowledge on information management (p < 0.01), digital communication methods (p < 0.05), and data protection and IT security in medicine (p < 0.01) to be significantly worse than their male peers, while no significant differences were seen in the third and final year. Regarding the topic of wearables and apps, a significant difference was seen only in the first 3 clinical years of study and not in the final year (Fig. 1). Across all clinical years of study, male students more frequently reported keeping themselves informed about digital medicine outside of their studies.
Fig. 1.
Response to the item “I assess my knowledge of wearables and apps in medicine as follows” stratified by gender and clinical year of study. Data are shown as means and 95% confidence intervals. Difference between clinical years of study: Mann–Whitney U tests, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n.s., difference not significant
Discussion
Digital technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the medical sector, so competencies in this area should be addressed as early as possible [12–15]. In today’s medical education, increasing efforts are made to make medical teaching more gender-sensitive [27–32]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine gender differences in medical students regarding their opinions, self-assessment, and desire for further education on specific topics related to digital medicine.
In our survey, we found some significant gender differences when medical students were asked about their opinions and perceptions of digital medicine. Unlike previous studies [22], we did not find any difference regarding the fear of digital challenges in our survey. Most students showed a great motivation to use innovative digital medicine in their future medical profession, however with higher approval rates among male students.
We found that, overall, male students indicated a higher self-assessed knowledge regarding various topics of digital medicine (digital communication methods, wearables and apps, robotics and digital processes in patient management), especially in the first clinical years of study. Our results match a survey among students and staff at an Austrian medical university, in which men rated their knowledge about electronic information and communication technologies in medicine and telemedicine better than women [21]. Several studies have already described that female medical students as well as female physicians assessed themselves significantly worse regarding practical skills than their male peers, although there seems to be no difference regarding their objective performance [33–35].
Male students more frequently reported keeping themselves informed about digital medicine outside of their studies across all clinical years of study. Interestingly, female medical students assessed their knowledge of different areas of digital medicine worse than male students especially in the early clinical semesters, whereas the differences were no longer significant in the final year. More research is needed to investigate whether the described gender differences are also evident in objectifiable knowledge and application in the field of digital medicine.
One explanation for this observation could be that differences in prior knowledge are successively compensated for by an increasing transfer of relevant knowledge during the study period. Thus, an increased and early integration of digital medicine topics into the medical curriculum could potentially compensate for existing differences early in the studies and prepare both future female and male physicians for their professional lives in the best possible way. Another explanation could be an increase in self-confidence of female students during the study course, compensating for a possible bias in self-assessment. Previous studies have already described that female medical students self-assessed their practical skills as worse than their male peers even though no difference in terms of objective performance could be found [36, 37]. Further studies are needed to better elucidate these topics.
However, we found a strong desire for further education on all surveyed topics irrespective of gender. These results are consistent with a Europe-wide study in which medical students expressed a desire for a stronger thematization of digital medicine in their studies [20].
Of course, this study has some limitations. Due to the monocentric character of this study, results cannot be generalized. Biases due to the online character, the limited time availability of the survey, or the low response rate cannot be ruled out either. Moreover, this cross-sectional study does not allow any conclusions about possible causalities.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the students that participated in this survey.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Topol EJ. A decade of digital medicine innovation. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(498):1–3. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw7610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dunn J, Runge R, Snyder M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Per Med. 2018;15(5):429–448. doi: 10.2217/pme-2018-0044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Klaassen B, van Beijnum BJF, Hermens HJ. Usability in telemedicine systems - a literature survey. Int J of Med Infor. 2016;93:57–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Artificial intelligence powers digital medicine. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Kataria S, Ravindran V. Digital health: a new dimension in rheumatology patient care. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38(11):1949–1957. doi: 10.1007/s00296-018-4037-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Garg S, Williams NL, Ip A, Dicker AP. Clinical integration of digital solutions in health care: an overview of the current landscape of digital technologies in cancer care. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–9. doi: 10.1200/CCI.17.00159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Warraich HJ, Califf RM, Krumholz HM. The digital transformation of medicine can revitalize the patient-clinician relationship. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1(1):1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0060-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mesko B, Győrffy Z. The rise of the empowered physician in the digital health era: Viewpoint. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e12490. doi: 10.2196/12490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yadav L, Haldar A, Jasper U, Taylor A, Visvanathan R, Chehade M, et al. Utilising digital health technology to support patient-healthcare provider communication in fragility fracture recovery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. IJERPH. 2019;16(20):4047–4122. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16204047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Alami H, Gagnon M-P, Fortin J-P. Digital health and the challenge of health systems transformation. mHealth. 2017;3:31–1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 11.Kemp E, Trigg J, Beatty L, Christensen C, Dhillon HM, Maeder A, et al. Health literacy, digital health literacy and the implementation of digital health technologies in cancer care: the need for a strategic approach. Health Promot J Austr. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 12.Hannan TJ, Celia C. Are doctors the structural weakness in the e-health building? Intern Med J. 2013;43(10):1155–1164. doi: 10.1111/imj.12270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Haag M, Igel C, Fischer MR, German Medical Education Society (GMA), Committee “Digitalization - Technology-Assisted Learning and Teaching,” Joint working group “Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning in Medicine (TeLL)” of the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (gmds) and the German Informatics Society (GI). Digital Teaching and Digital Medicine: a national initiative is needed. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Wernhart A, Gahbauer S, Haluza D. eHealth and telemedicine: practices and beliefs among healthcare professionals and medical students at a medical university. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(2):e0213067–e213113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kolachalama VB, Garg PS. Machine learning and medical education. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:54. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0061-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Waseh S, Dicker AP. Telemedicine training in undergraduate medical education: Mixed-methods review. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5(1):e12515–e12519. doi: 10.2196/12515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kuhn S, Jungmann F. Medicine in the digital age. Radiologe. 2018;58(3):236–240. doi: 10.1007/s00117-017-0351-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mesko B, Győrffy Z, Kollár J. Digital literacy in the medical curriculum: a course with social media tools and gamification. JMIR Med Educ. 2015;1(2):1–6. doi: 10.2196/mededu.4411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Aungst TD, Patel R. Integrating digital health into the curriculum-considerations on the current landscape and future developments. J Med Educ Curr Dev. 2020;7:1–7. doi: 10.1177/2382120519901275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Machleid F, Kaczmarczyk R, Johann D, Balčiūnas J, Atienza-Carbonell B, von Maltzahn F, et al. Perceptions of digital health education among European medical students: Mixed methods survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):1–13. doi: 10.2196/19827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Haluza D, Wernhart A. Does gender matter? Exploring perceptions regarding health technologies among employees and students at a medical university. In J Med Inform. 2019;130:103948. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang X, Guo X, Lai K-H, Guo F, Li C. Understanding gender differences in m-health adoption: a modified theory of reasoned action model. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(1):39–46. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Roter DL, Hall JA. Physician gender and patient-centered communication: a critical review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25(1):497–519. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mast MS, Hall JA, Köckner C, Choi E. Physician gender affects how physician nonverbal behavior is related to patient satisfaction. Med Care. 2008;46(12):1212–1218. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817e1877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lagro-Janssen ALM. Medicine is not gender-neutral: Influence of physician sex on medical care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;152(20):1141–1145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Christen RN, Alder J, Bitzer J. Gender differences in physicians’ communicative skills and their influence on patient satisfaction in gynaecological outpatient consultations. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(7):1474–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Schreitmüller J, Becker JC, Zsebedits D, Weskott M, Dehghan-Nayyeri M, Fegeler C, et al. Development and initial Experience of an online exchange platform on sex and gender aspects in medicine: GenderMed-Wiki. GMS J Med Educ. 2018;35(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 28.Steinböck S, Nachtschatt U, Hochleitner M. Lecture series on gender medicine at Innsbruck and Vienna medical universities: a teaching format in comparison. GMS J Med Educ. 2020;37(2):1–13. doi: 10.3205/zma001313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ludwig S, Dettmer S, Wurl W, Seeland U, Maaz A, Peters H. Evaluation of curricular relevance and actual integration of sex/gender and cultural competencies by final year medical students: Effects of student diversity subgroups and curriculum. GMS J Med Educ. 2020;37(2) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 30.Gaida P, Kujumdshiev S, Stengler K. Gender sensitivity in career mentoring - a project report from the Medical Faculty of Leipzig University. GMS J Med Educ. 2020;37(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 31.Clever K, Richter C, Meyer G. Current approaches to the integration of sex- and gender-specific medicine in teaching: a qualitative expert survey. GMS J Med Educ. 2020;37(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 32.Sowbhagya M, Marjadi B. Blended learning to teach gender in medical school. Clin Teach. 2018;15(3):208–213. doi: 10.1111/tct.12778. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Madrazo L, Lee CB, McConnell M, Khamisa K. Self-assessment differences between genders in a low-stakes objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). BMC Res Notes. 2018;1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 34.O'Doherty D, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, Dromey M, O'Tuathaigh C, et al. Internet skills of medical faculty and students: is there a difference? BMC Medical Educ. 2019;1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 35.Miller KA, Monuteaux MC, Roussin C, Nagler J. Self-confidence in endotracheal intubation among pediatric interns: Associations with gender, experience, and performance. Acad Pediatr. 2019;19(7):822–827. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2019.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Madrazo L, Lee CB, McConnell M, Khamisa K. Self-assessment differences between genders in a low-stakes objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). BMC Res Notes. BioMed Central. 2018:1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 37.O’Doherty D, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, Dromey M, O’Tuathaigh C, et al. Internet skills of medical faculty and students: is there a difference? BMC Med Educ. 2019:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.