CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyInnovations in Medical EducationGender, Sexuality, and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An undergraduate medical curriculum framework for providing care to transgender and gender diverse patients: A modified Delphi study

Open access
Ellaway, Rachel H., Thompson, Nicole L., Temple-Oberle, Claire, Pacaud, Danièle, Frecker, Helena, Jablonski, Theodore J., Demers, James, Mattatall, Fiona, Raiche, Joe, Hull, Andrea, Jalil, Rabiya·2021·Perspectives on Medical Education
DOI 10.1007/s40037-021-00692-7PMC PMC8600495
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction The lack of attention to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people in undergraduate medical education (UME) is a point of concern, particularly among medical students. A project was undertaken to develop a UME curriculum framework for teaching the healthcare needs of TGD people. Methods Using a modified Delphi methodology, four rounds of surveys were presented to an expert stakeholder group that included content experts, generalist physicians, UME teaching faculty, and medical students. Questions covered what content should be taught, who should teach the content, and how much time should be dedicated for this teaching. Once the Delphi process was complete, feedback on the provisional framework was sought from members of the TGD community to ensure it represented their needs and perspectives. Results 71 panel members and 56 community members participated in the study. Core values included the scope of the framework, and topics such as inclusivity, and safety in practice and in teaching. The framework included terminology, epidemiology, medical and surgical treatment, mental health, sexual and reproductive health, and routine primary care. There was also guidance on who should teach, time to be allocated, and the learning environment. Discussion There is a clear need to train tomorrow’s doctors to provide competent and respectful healthcare services to and for TGD patients. Although local factors will likely shape the way in which this framework will be implemented in different contexts, this paper outlines a core UME-level curriculum framework for Canada and, potentially, for use in other parts of the world.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40037-021-00692-7

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 70% threshold was based on previous Delphi studies used for curriculum development.

    “The 70% threshold was based on previous Delphi studies used for curriculum development21–25.”

    From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Methods (Delphi phase) explicitly say the study did not set a priori consensus thresholds; it used gaps between clustered scores to decide inclusion or exclusion. The Discussion (Limitations) likewise says its approach used bimodality rather than predefined percentage thresholds. This paper therefore does not provide an example of a curriculum-development Delphi study using a 70% threshold. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The approach was based on similar studies that successfully used expert opinions to create or update curricula in medicine for different subject areas, leveraging their structures to ensure the process was thorough.

    “We also based our approach on similar studies that have successfully used expert opinions to create or update curricula in medicine for different subject areas, leveraging their structures to ensure our process was thorough21–25.”

    From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Ellaway, R. H., Thompson, N. L., Temple-Oberle, C., Pacaud, D., Frecker, H., Jablonski, T. J., Demers, J., Mattatall, F., Raiche, J., Hull, A., & Jalil, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Ellaway, Rachel H.
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Medical Education
Publisher
Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
Published
2021-11-18
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
36-44
ISSN
  • 2212-2761 (ISSN-L)
  • 2212-277X
DOI
10.1007/s40037-021-00692-7
PMC
PMC8600495
OpenAlex
W3212234692
Cited by
22
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Perspectives on Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Sexuality, and Education
Keywords
transgender and gender-diverse patients, undergraduate medical education, curriculum framework, gender-affirming care, inclusive healthcare, medical terminology, mental health, sexual and reproductive health, primary care, teachers, stakeholder consensus
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Male, Students, Medical, Transgender Persons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review