128 - Claiming Our Space: Collaborative Development of Survey Questions for Studying Gender and Sex Inclusivity in Anatomy Education

Poster Board Number: 128
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Suise Soo Jin Lee - McMaster University; Eva Chima - McMaster University; adam Arca - McMaster University; Maha Siddique - McMaster University; Simran Lohit - McMaster University; Kristina Durham - McMaster University; Danielle Brewer-Deluce - McMaster University

Abstract Body :
Introduction:




Historically, anatomy education has fostered a binary view of sex and gender, inequitably excluding non-binary folx views and experiences. This exclusion may compromise gender minority healthcare quality, especially when attended to by professionals educated in environments upholding this binary paradigm. Ultimately, it is critical to appraise the integration of sex/gender in anatomy education to better understand successes and barriers to meaningful change. This type of research benefits from integrating community, student, and educator (i.e., stakeholder) partners to ensure current knowledge and societal perspectives are reflected. Critically, anatomy education research with partner involvement is limited, with only 3 relevant papers identified, and only 1 regarding sex/gender.









Objectives:




To address this binary sex and gender representation in anatomy, our larger project is appraising the incorporation of sex and gender in body donation procedures, the physical anatomy lab space, and curriculum using a survey and interviews. The current abstract describes our partnered approach to developing a data collection tool (i.e., interview questions for our larger project) thereby aligning research objectives with the priorities of those the research aims to serve.









Methods:




Two faculty members and two organizations involved in research, teaching, or advocacy in health, sex, gender, or anatomy, were recruited as partners. Partners reviewed the draft data collection tool and then, via a semi-structured interview, were asked about opportunities to further develop the questions in the tool. Partner responses were thematically analyzed and integrated into the revised data collection tool.









Results:




Key themes identified by partners included mistrust in the medical system, the impact of environment and communication in education and body donation procedures, and the need for sensitivity in discussing sex/gender. They also emphasized the importance of incorporating gender diverse member perspectives within research, and reflecting on the influence of stereotypes and biases on the research outcomes, and using inclusive language. Based on this input, 16% of the final interview questions were revised or newly created.









Conclusion:




A partnered approach aligned our study data collection tool with stakeholder priorities by educating the research team on community values, perspectives, and goals.









Significance:




This partnered approach explores community perspectives, promoting equity in research by amplifying stakeholder voices in academia. The project exemplifies integrating equity and inclusion principles into study methodology, serving as a guide for other researchers adopting a partnered approach in this context.