Educational strategies for integrating gender perspectives in health professions training: a systematic review to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion
Publication type
journal article
Publication date
March 7, 2026
Author(s)
López, Karina
Cabanas, Ana María
Pinazo, Fabian
Zambrano, Nathalia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Language
English
Discipline(s)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preparing health professionals to deliver equitable, culturally competent care requires integrating gender perspectives throughout medical training. While essential for addressing health disparities affecting women, men, and gender-diverse populations, implementation approaches vary widely across institutions and regions. Evidence on effective strategies remains fragmented. This systematic review synthesizes educational interventions for gender-sensitive training, evaluates outcomes on student competencies, and examines global research patterns to identify equity gaps in the scholarship itself.
METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a prospectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD420251132158). We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between 2015 and 2025 that evaluated educational strategies for integrating gender perspectives in health professions training. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal using a generic risk-of-bias tool. Thematic synthesis identified core educational strategy domains and their effectiveness. We complemented this with bibliometric mapping (co-citation, co-authorship, co-word analysis) to examine geographic distribution of research, international collaboration patterns, and conceptual evolution in the field.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria from 133 records. Six educational strategy domains emerged from thematic synthesis: curricular design, active learning methodologies, faculty development, assessment systems, digital technologies, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Interventions consistently improved clinical knowledge of gender-diverse health needs, recognition and reduction of implicit bias, ethical sensitivity, and gender-affirming communication skills. Bibliometric analysis revealed striking geographic concentration: 72.2% of research originates from European institutions (38% from Germany alone), with minimal international collaboration (12.5) and virtually no Global South representation. This pattern highlights persistent inequities in whose perspectives shape DEI frameworks in medical education.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating gender perspectives into health professions education represents an evidence-based strategy for advancing DEI principles and preparing providers to deliver equitable, culturally competent care. Effective implementation requires dedicated institutional commitment through three key mechanisms: dedicated change agents who champion gender equity, formal structural integration rather than ad-hoc interventions, and systematic faculty development programs. However, the geographic concentration of research in high-income Western contexts raises critical questions about equity in DEI scholarship itself. Achieving gender equity in healthcare globally requires parallel commitments: integrating gender-sensitive curricula in all institutions while ensuring that diverse global voices, especially from the Global South, meaningfully shape DEI discourse and frameworks.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251132158.
Part of
BMC Medical Education
ISSN
1472-6920
Volume
26
Issue
1