Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in the Percentage of Illustrations Showing Males Versus Females in General Medicine and General Surgery Textbooks

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to assess differences in the percentage of illustrations showing males versus females in textbooks of general medicine and general surgery, two areas that constitute a focus of the traditional medical school curriculum. Illustrations showing 3447 individuals and/or external body parts from all general medicine (n = 13) and general surgery (n = 2) books listed in the “essential purchase titles” section of Doody’s Core Titles list (2013) were assessed. Sex was determined based on depictions of faces, chests, and the genital region. One thousand one hundred fifty-three individuals and/or external body parts could be clearly identified as either male (58.28 %) or female (41.72 %), yielding a difference of 16.57 %. The difference in the percentage of identifiable males and females depicted was smaller in general surgery books (6.43 %) as compared to general medicine texts (20.84 %). Differences were noted in the percentage of male and female body parts shown by anatomical site. Of all faces that could be clearly identified as either male or female, 78.04 % were male, while 21.96 % were female. By contrast, 55.93 % of genital regions that could be classed as either male or female showed men, while 44.07 % showed women. These results suggest that illustrations in medical textbooks may continue to depict more males than females. Students may have more exposure to illustrations of the male than the female body during their training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angell M. Caring for women’s health—what is the problem? N Engl J Med. 1993;329:271–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Gender disparities in clinical decision making. JAMA. 1991;266:559–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mendelsohn KD, Nieman LZ, Isaacs K, Lee S, Levison SP. Sex and gender bias in anatomy and physical diagnosis text illustrations. JAMA. 1994;272:1267–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedman LS, Simon R, Foulkes MA, Friedman L, Geller NL, Gordon DJ, et al. Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993—the perspective of NIH clinical trialists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:277–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Meisel ZF, Armstrong K, Crawford CC, Shofer FS, Peacock N, Facenda K, et al. Influence of sex on the out-of-hospital management of chest pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:80–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vaccarino V, Rathore SS, Wenger NK, Frederick PD, Abramson JL, Barron HV, et al. Sex and racial differences in the management of acute myocardial infarction, 1994 through 2002. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:671–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, Peterson ED, Trynosky K, Diercks DB, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;45:832–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tavris D, Shoaibi A, Chen AY, Uchida T, Roe MT, Chen J. Gender differences in the treatment of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2010;33:99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Keyhani S, Scobie JV, Hebert PL, McLaughlin MA. Gender disparities in blood pressure control and cardiovascular care in a national sample of ambulatory care visits. Hypertension. 2008;51:1149–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hawker GA, Wright JG, Coyte PC, Williams I, Harvey B, Glazier R, et al. Differences between men and women in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1016–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gebo KA, Fleishman JA, Conviser R, Reilly E, Korthius PT, Moore RD, et al. Racial and gender disparities in receipt of highly active antiretroviral therapy persist in a multistate sample of HIV patients in 2001. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38:96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mocroft A, Gill MJ, Davidson W, Phillips AN. Are there gender differences in starting protease inhibitors, HAART, and disease progression despite equal access to care? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2000;24:475–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alexanderson K, Wingren G, Rosdahl I. Gender analysis of medical textbooks on dermatology, epidemiology, occupational medicine and public health. Educ Health. 1998;11:151–63.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dijkstra AJ, Verdonk P, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Gender bias in medical textbooks: examples from coronary heart disease, depression, alcohol abuse and pharmacology. Med Educ. 2008;42:1021–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lawrence SC, Bendixen K. His and hers: male and female anatomy in anatomy texts for U.S. medical students, 1890–1989. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:925–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Giacomini M, Rozée-Koker P, Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell F. Gender bias in human anatomy textbook illustrations. Psychol Women Q. 1986;10:413–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morgan S, Plaisant O, Lignier B, Moxham BJ. Sexism and anatomy, as discerned in textbooks and as perceived by medical students at Cardiff University and University of Paris Descartes. J Anat. 2014;224:352–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doody’s Core Titles, 2013 edition. Available from: www.doody.com

  19. Shedlock J, Walton LJ. Developing a virtual community for health sciences library book selection: Doody’s Core Titles. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94:61–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gesensway D. Reasons for sex-specific and gender-specific study of health topics. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:935–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips SP. Defining and measuring gender: a social determinant of health whose time has come. Int J Equity Health. 2005;4:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Yonina R. Murciano-Goroff

Authors
  1. Yonina R. Murciano-Goroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yonina R. Murciano-Goroff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murciano-Goroff, Y.R. Differences in the Percentage of Illustrations Showing Males Versus Females in General Medicine and General Surgery Textbooks. Med.Sci.Educ. 25, 123–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0116-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0116-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation