The influence of gender on clinical examination skills of medical students in Jordan: a cross-sectional study.
Farnaz Sabet, Sohaib Zoghoul, Murad Alahmad, Heba Al Qudah
Author Information
Farnaz Sabet: Formerly at Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. farnazs@gmail.com.
Sohaib Zoghoul: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Murad Alahmad: Department of General Surgery and Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Heba Al Qudah: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
BACKGROUND: A graduating medical doctor is expected to be competent in physical examinations across all systems. The exploration of how gender affects the development of clinical skills has not been explored in an Arab context, despite cultural restrictions that make it more difficult for students and doctors to examine the opposite sex. METHODS: A cross sectional survey was undertaken of graduating final year medical students in Northern Jordan. We asked about students' perceptions regarding factors that may impact the development of clinical skills potentially related to gender, and asked about the frequency of examinations performed during their training for intimate and general physical examinations on all patients, as well as patients of the opposite sex. We also asked about the students' confidence in performing the examinations (3-point Likert-scale). Comparison of male and female proportions was done using Chi square tests analysis. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight final year students from 481 students (41%) completed the survey, 99 males and 89 females. The greatest factor given for impacting a student's clinical examination of a patient of the opposite sex was cultural or religious traditions. Overall male students perform more clinical examinations than female students, with the odds of a male conducting more than 10 cardiovascular examinations on any patient compared to female students being 2.07 (1.13-3.79) and as high as 3.06 (1.53-6.18) for thyroid examinations. However, females were significantly more likely to examine male patients than vice versa (0.49 (0.27-0.88) for cardiovascular and 0.39 (0.21-0.71) for respiratory examinations). The gender division was more prominent for intimate examinations, with a lower odds of males conducting breast 0.11 (0.04-0.28) and vaginal examinations 0.22 (0.02-1.98) and more male students conducting prostate examinations OR 11.00 (1.39-87.03) and male genitalia examinations OR 16.31 (3.75-70.94). Overall a large proportion of students had never performed common intimate clinical examinations at all. CONCLUSIONS: In our context, clinical exposure to both intimate and general clinical examinations differs significantly between male and female students. A greater awareness and more research on the influence of gender on clinical skill attainment in conservative cultures is needed with appropriate adaption of clinical teaching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Non interventional thus not required.
