Assessing Use of Gender Diverse Language in Patient Education Materials on Breast Reconstruction

Utilizing inclusive terminology in patient education materials is an increasing area of focus in plastic surgery. Over 300,000 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in 2020, affecting cisgender and gender diverse patients alike. Both cisgender and gender diverse patients may choose to undergo breast...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open Vol. 10; no. 6; p. e4400
Main Authors: Powell, Lauren E., Smith, Rachel M., Baek, Annabel E., Goodreau, Adam M., Pozez, Andrea L.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 20-06-2022
Wolters Kluwer
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Utilizing inclusive terminology in patient education materials is an increasing area of focus in plastic surgery. Over 300,000 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in 2020, affecting cisgender and gender diverse patients alike. Both cisgender and gender diverse patients may choose to undergo breast reconstruction. This study aims to assess the use of inclusive language in online patient education materials on reconstruction after breast cancer. MethodsMaterials were collected from all academic hospitals with a plastic surgery integrated and/or independent residency program, 97 in total. Programs were further classified by the presence of a comprehensive gender program. Materials were analyzed for gender diverse terminology outlined by the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center. A chi-square test evaluated for statistical significance of inclusive terminology based on the presence or absence of a comprehensive gender program. ResultsThe majority (75%) of programs referenced cis women alone, with 25% referring to both men and women or using gender neutral terms such as "patients." Although most (85%) programs wrote in second person ("you"), 15% used she/her/hers pronouns alone, and no programs utilized gender diverse language outlined by the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center. The presence or absence of a comprehensive gender program was not predictive of the use of inclusive terminology (P = 0.32). ConclusionsThis study found that only 25% of breast reconstruction materials contained inclusive gender terminology. Plastic surgeons should provide patient education materials with language that supports members of a gender diverse population to facilitate a safe, inclusive space and conversation.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2169-7574
2169-7574
DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004400