Gender bias has implications in the treatment of both male and female patients and it is important to take into consideration in most fields of medical research, clinical practice and education. Gender blindness and stereotyped preconceptions about men and women are identified as key causes to gender bias. However, exaggeration of observed sex and gender differences can also lead to bias. This article will examine the phenomenon of gender bias in medicine, present useful concepts and models for the understanding of bias, and outline areas of interest for further research. Research has shown that different biological processes, anatomies, conditions in daily life, environmental experiences, risk behaviors and responses to stressful events, may all contribute to variation in health and disease in men and women [1-5]. There is also evidence that women, for no apparent medical reason, are not offered the same treatment as men, a phenomenon that raises the question of gender bias. Many studies, for example, show that women are less likely than men to receive more advanced diagnostic and therapeutic interventions [6-11]. The word bias means 'prejudice' or 'distortion' and is a threatening phenomenon in all kinds of research and human activity. When we talk about gender bias in medicine we usually either mean an unintended, but systematic neglect of either women or men, stereotyped preconceptions about the health, behavior, experiences, needs, wishes and so on, of men and women, or neglect of gender issues relevant to the topic of interest. Gender bias has implications in treatment of both male and female patients and it is important to take into consideration in most fields of medical research, clinical practice and education. Gender bias is also a relevant issue in the discussion of clinical and academic advancements and careers [12]; however, that aspect is not the focus of this article. Since there is confusion in medicine about the use of the concept of gender [13], my use of the term is presented below.

Available data indicate that there are gender differences in many features of Parkinson's disease (PD). Precise identification of the gender differences is important to tailor treatment, predict outcomes, and meet other individual and social needs in women and men with PD. The aim of this study was to review the available clinical data on gender differences in PD. Original articles and meta-analyses published between 1990 and 2016 systematically exploring gender differences in PD were reviewed. There is slight male preponderance in incidence and prevalence of PD. PD starts earlier in men. Women tend to be more prone to develop tremor-dominant PD but are less rigid than men. Motor improvement after deep brain stimulation is equal in both sexes, but women tend to show better improvement in activities of daily living. Furthermore, women with PD show better results on tests for general cognitive abilities, outperform men in verbal cognitive tasks, show more pain symptoms, and score higher on depression scales. It seems, however, that the differences in cognition, mood, and pain perception are not disease specific as similar gender differences can be found in healthy subjects and in other neurological conditions. Despite PD being the most frequently studied movement disorder, studies investigating gender differences in PD are still scarce with most of the studies being cross-sectional. Good-quality, prospective, longitudinal studies analyzing gender differences in PD and comparing them to matched healthy controls are needed in order to properly address the issues of gender differences in PD.

The results suggest that physicians' gendered expectations are involved in creating gender differences in medicine. The inclusion of gender theory and discussions about gender attitudes into medical school curricula is recommended to bring about awareness of the problem.

The content of childbirth-related fear as described by 308 women and 194 men was analyzed and compared in relation to intensity of fear. The content of fear was similarly described by women and men and concerned the following main categories: the labor and delivery process, the health and life of the baby, the health and life of the woman, own capabilities and reactions, the partner's capabilities and reactions, and the professionals' competence and behavior. Among women, the labor and delivery process was the most frequently reported among the 6 categories of fears, whereas the health and life of the baby was the most frequent among the men. Fears related to own capabilities and reactions were described significantly more often by women with intense fear than by women with mild to moderate fear. The greatest difference between men with intense versus mild to moderate fear was a more frequent expression of concern for the health and life of the woman. Both women and men had fears related to not being treated with respect and not receiving sufficient medical care. This finding suggests that part of the problem with childbirth-related fear is located within the health care system itself.

The increase in qualitative research in family medicine raises a demand for critical discussions about design, methods and conclusions. This article shows how scientific claims for truthful findings and neutrality can be assessed. Established concepts such as validity, reliability, objectivity and generalization cannot be used in qualitative research. Alternative criteria for scientific rigour, initially introduced by Lincoln and Guba, are presented: credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. These criteria have been applied to a research project, a qualitative study with in-depth interviews with female patients suffering from chronic pain in the locomotor system. The interview data were analysed on the basis of grounded theory. The proposed indicators for scientific rigour were shown to be useful when applied to the research project. Several examples are given. Difficulties in the use of the alternative criteria are also discussed.

During the last decades research has reported unmotivated differences in the treatment of women and men in various areas of clinical and academic medicine. There is an ongoing discussion on how to avoid such gender bias. We developed a three-step-theoretical model to understand how gender bias in medicine can occur and be understood. In this paper we present the model and discuss its usefulness in the efforts to avoid gender bias. In the model gender bias is analysed in relation to assumptions concerning difference/sameness and equity/inequity between women and men. Our model illustrates that gender bias in medicine can arise from assuming sameness and/or equity between women and men when there are genuine differences to consider in biology and disease, as well as in life conditions and experiences. However, gender bias can also arise from assuming differences when there are none, when and if dichotomous stereotypes about women and men are understood as valid. This conceptual thinking can be useful for discussing and avoiding gender bias in clinical work, medical education, career opportunities and documents such as research programs and health care policies. Too meet the various forms of gender bias, different facts and measures are needed. Knowledge about biological differences between women and men will not reduce bias caused by gendered stereotypes or by unawareness of health problems and discrimination associated with gender inequity. Such bias reflects unawareness of gendered attitudes and will not change by facts only. We suggest consciousness-rising activities and continuous reflections on gender attitudes among students, teachers, researchers and decisionmakers.

BackgroundIn 1998 the Swedish noncommercial public health service Infomedica opened an Ask the Doctor service on its Internet portal. At no charge, anyone with Internet access can use this service to ask questions about personal health-related and disease-related matters.ObjectiveTo study why individuals choose to consult previously-unknown doctors on the Internet.MethodsBetween November 1, 2001, and January 31, 2002 a Web survey of the 3622 Ask the Doctor service users, 1036 men (29%) and 2586 (71%) women, was conducted. We excluded 186 queries from users. The results are based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of the answers to the question "Why did you choose to ask a question at Infomedica's 'Ask the Doctor' service?"Results1223 surveys were completed (response rate 34%). Of the participants in the survey 322 (26%) were male and 901 (74%) female. As major reasons for choosing to consult previously-unknown doctors on the Internet participants indicated: convenience (52%), anonymity (36%), "doctors too busy" (21%), difficult to find time to visit a doctor (16%), difficulty to get an appointment (13%), feeling uncomfortable when seeing a doctor (9%), and not being able to afford a doctors' visit (3%). Further motives elicited through a qualitative analysis of free-text answers were: seeking a second opinion, discontent with previous doctors and a wish for a primary evaluation of a medical problem, asking embarrassing or sensitive questions, seeking information on behalf of relatives, preferring written communication, and (from responses by expatriates, travelers, and others) living far away from regular health care.ConclusionsWe found that an Internet based Ask the Doctor service is primarily consulted because it is convenient, but it may also be of value for individuals with needs that regular health care services have not been able to meet.

BackgroundToday, women constitute about half of medical students in several Western societies, yet women physicians are still underrepresented in surgical specialties and clustered in other branches of medicine. Gender segregation in specialty preference has been found already in medical school. It is important to study the career preferences of our future physicians, as they will influence the maintenance of an adequate supply of physicians in all specialties and the future provision of health care. American and British studies dominate the area of gender and medical careers whereas Swedish studies on medical students’ reasons for specialty preference are scarce. The aim of this study is to investigate and compare Swedish male and female medical students’ specialty preferences and the motives behind them.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2009, all last-year medical students at Umea University, Sweden (N = 421), were invited to answer a questionnaire about their future career and family plans. They were asked about their specialty preference and how they rated the impact that the motivational factors had for their choice. The response rate was 89% (N = 372); 58% were women (N = 215) and 42% were men (N = 157). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent impact of each motivational factor for specialty preference.ResultsOn the whole, male and female last-year students opted for similar specialties. Men and women had an almost identical ranking order of the motivational factors. When analyzed separately, male and female students showed both similarities and differences in the motivational factors that were associated with their specialty preference. A majority of the women and a good third of the men intended to work part-time. The motivational factor combining work with family correlated with number of working hours for women, but not for men.ConclusionsThe gender similarities in the medical students’ specialty preferences are striking and contrast with research from other Western countries where male and female students show more differences in career aspirations. These similarities should be seized by the health care system in order to counteract the horizontal gender segregation in the physician workforce of today.