Protocols as curriculum? Learning health advocacy skills by working with transgender patients in the context of gender-affirming medicine
Evidenced by leading journals in academic medicine, health professions education has taken up the call to advance equitable healthcare. One pressing area where gaps and inequities are apparent is transgender (trans) people’s access to gender-affirming medicine such as hormones and surgeries. Reasons for the dire state of care include education gaps. While specific content knowledge has been identified as lacking in medical school curricula, less research has focused on the complex social practices required of clinicians and educators working in gender-affirming medicine, and how these skills are learned through practice. In order to inform health professions education in this key area of need, we conducted a study to better understand the social practices, and the learning that occurs therein, of gender-affirming medicine. We identified the work processes of 22 clinicians, clinician-educators, trans patients, and clinical care administrators with attention to how policies and protocols influenced practice, learning, and teaching. The results of our study elucidate: (1) that practicing of gender-affirming medicine is strictly dictated by standardized assessment protocols, which serve as a form of curriculum; and (2) how health professionals learn and teach health advocacy as a form of resistance to protocols identified as creating inequities. These findings suggest an opportunity to view protocols—and their inherent limitations—more deliberately as teaching and learning tools, specifically for learning advocacy.
KeywordsHealth advocacy Health professions education Institutional ethnography Protocols Standards of care Transgender
We thank Dr. Ayelet Kuper for reviewing and providing commentary on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We also extend gratitude to our reviewers, and to Dr. Geoffrey Norman, for providing extensive thoughtful feedback on our original submission within the peer-review process.
- Asscheman, H., Giltay, E. J., Megans, J. A., de Ronde, W. P., van Trotsenburg, M. A., & Gooren, L. J. (2011). A long-term follow-up study of mortality in transsexuals receiving treatment with cross-sex hormones. European Journal of Endocrinology, 164(4), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-10-1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coutin, A., Wright, S., Li, C., & Fung, R. (2018). Missed opportunities: Are residents prepared to care for transgender patients? A study of family medicine, psychiatry, endocrinology, and urology residents. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 9(3), e41–e55.Google Scholar
- Moffett, P., & Moore, G. (2011). The standard of care: Legal history and definitions: The bad and good news. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12(1), 109–112.Google Scholar
- Smith, D. E. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for the people. Oxford: Rowman Altamira.Google Scholar
- Snelgrove, J. W., Jasudavius, A. M., Rowe, B. W., Head, E. M., & Bauer, G. R. (2012). “Completely out-at-sea” with “two-gender medicine”: A qualitative analysis of physician-side barriers to providing healthcare for transgender patients. BMC Health Services Research, 12(10), 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Turner, S. M. (2006). Mapping institutions as work and texts. In D. E. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 139–161). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar