Bringing gender sensitivity into healthcare practice: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the body of literature on gender dimensions and disparities between the sexes in health, practical improvements will not be realized effectively as long as we lack an overview of the ways how to implement these ideas. This systematic review provides a content analysis of literature on the implementation of gender sensitivity in health care. METHODS: Literature was identified from CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, EBSCO and Cochrane (1998-2008) and the reference lists of relevant articles. The quality and relevance of 752 articles were assessed and finally 11 original studies were included. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that the implementation of gender sensitivity includes tailoring opportunities and barriers related to the professional, organizational and the policy level. As gender disparities are embedded in healthcare, a multiple track approach to implement gender sensitivity is needed to change gendered healthcare systems. CONCLUSION: Conventional approaches, taking into account one barrier and/or opportunity, fail to prevent gender inequality in health care. For gender-sensitive health care we need to change systems and structures, but also to enhance understanding, raise awareness and develop skills among health professionals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To bring gender sensitivity into healthcare practice, interventions should address a range of factors.

Gender sensitivity among general practitioners: results of a training programme.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences contribute to patients' health and illness. However in current healthcare practices attention to gender differences is still underdeveloped. Recognizing these differences and taking them into account can improve the quality of care. In this study we aimed to investigate whether GPs' gender sensitivity can be stimulated by a training programme. The focus was on three diseases: angina pectoris, depression and urinary incontinence. METHODS: This study had a quantitative, explorative and descriptive design. By means of a training programme 18 GPs were trained to focus on gender-sensitive recommendations for the three diseases. With standardised registration forms, data were collected during a 6-month period. During the registration period, the GPs were visited by the study team to discuss the process of data collection. RESULTS: The GPs filled in registration forms for 100 patients: 39 with angina pectoris (31 women and 8 men), 40 with depression (26 women and 14 men), and 21 with urinary incontinence (20 women and 1 man). The results show that gender sensitivity can be stimulated among trained professionals. The combination of the training programme, clear and practical recommendations, daily discussion of relevant cases between the GP couples, feedback and support during registration by the study team probably contributed to the outcome. CONCLUSION: GPs' gender sensitivity was stimulated by the training programme and the supporting visits. Ideally, structural attention could be realised by embedding gender issues in existing organisational structures of general practices.