The feminist women’s health movement empowered women’s knowledge regarding their health and battled against paternalistic and oppressive practices within healthcare systems. Gender Medicine (GM) is a new discipline that studies the effect of sex/gender on general health. The international society for gender medicine (IGM) was embraced by the FDA and granted funds by the European Union to formulate policies for medical practice and research.We conducted a review of IGM publications and policy statements in scientific journals and popular media. We found that while biological differences between men and women are emphasized, the impact of society on women is under- represented. The effect of gender-related violence, race, ethnic conflicts, poverty, immigration and discrimination on women’s health is seldom recognized. Contrary to feminist practice, GM is practiced by physicians and scientists, neglecting voices of other disciplines and of women themselves.In this article we show that while GM may promote some aspects of women’s health, at the same time it reaffirms conservative positions on sex and gender that can serve to justify discrimination and disregard the impact of society on women’s lives and health. An alternative approach, that integrates feminist thinking and practices into medical science, practice and policies is likely to result in a deep and beneficiary change in women’s health worldwide.
Objective Advanced care planning (ACP) is central to patients' dignity and autonomy; however, in many countries it is underutilized. Studies that tested the effects of palliative care (PC) often included the rate of documented ACP as a secondary end point. We aimed to assess the contribution of PC to the rate of ACP among terminally ill patients by systematically reviewing relevant clinical trials. Method PUBMED and “Cochrane trials” databases were screened for clinical trials published until October 2017 that compared the addition of PC to standard treatment and that had ACP as a primary or a secondary end point. Studies were assessed for validity by three investigators using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the ROBINS-I tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for cohort studies, respectively. Results Twenty-six trials with 37,924 patients were included. Four were RCTs, nine were cohort studies, and 12 were cross-sectional studies. Randomized trials had the lowest risk of bias. There was a positive correlation between the addition of PC and ACP in 25 studies, among them four randomized trials. Significance of results In this systematic review, PC was associated with improvement in the rate of ACP. Understanding the significant effect of PC on the completion of ACP is an additional emphasis on the importance of this treatment among terminally ill patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.