Advanced Search

Regular Article | June 01, 1999

Gender Bias in Psychiatric Texts

Raphael J. Leo, M.D.; Maria T. Cartagena, M.D.

Academic Psychiatry 1999;23:71-76.

View Article Information

Gender BiasPsychiatric TextbooksWomen

Dr. Leo is assistant professor of psychiatry, and Dr. Cartagena is clinical assistant professor of psychiatry, both are in the Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York, Buffalo. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Leo, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo Erie County Medical Center, 462 Grider Street, Buffalo, New York 14215.

Article

Tables

References

text A A A

Abstract

Prior research examining gender bias in textbooks used by medical students demonstrated that male models are used significantly more often than female models, raising concerns about the messages conveyed to trainees about patient care. By using a similar paradigm, this study assessed introductory psychiatric texts for gender bias. Five texts were selected for their use by medical students and based upon the presence of illustrative case vignettes. Frequencies with which vignettes featured male or female subjects were obtained. Two earlier versions of the DSM Casebooks were also reviewed for comparison with the most recent edition, to look for longitudinal trends. Male subjects were featured in case vignettes significantly more often than female subjects in the five texts combined; significantly different gender disparities were obtained in three of the five texts examined. The number of vignettes featuring female subjects exceeded those featuring males in one text. Despite repeated revision, each of the three versions of the DSM Casebooks retained a statistically significant predominance of male subjects. The observed gender discrepancies were not an artifact of use of vignettes illustrating disorders with higher prevalence rates among men. In fact, women were featured as subjects in vignettes illustrating disorders with higher prevalence rates among women. The use of predominantly male subjects was incongruent with trends in psychiatric service utilization by men and women. The potential impact of gender bias on medical trainees is discussed. (Academic Psychiatry 1999; 23:71—76)

Figures in this Article

Gender disparities in medical care have recently received increased attention. Gender bias inherent to the instructional materials used by medical students is one of many factors implicated in contributing to inequities in medical treatment (1—5).

Gender bias, in the form of role or social stereotypes, has been widely noted in instructional materials used in primary grades through college (6—8). Exposure to biased instructional materials increases gender-biased attitudes, particularly among children (9—11). Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act has been instrumental in reducing stereotypic representation of men and women in educational materials used in federally funded primary and secondary educational institutions (8,12).

Naturally, as regards training of medical students, there are concerns that gender-biased instructional materials can impart values that are later incorporated into clinical practice. After all, a great deal of a medical student's time is spent reviewing such texts. Gender bias can be incorporated into instructional materials in several ways. In addition to stereotypic presentations of men and women, bias can be conveyed in the frequencies that men and women are portrayed in case scenarios or as models, or in the amount of attention directed to disorders more common to men vs. women.

Previous investigations of gender bias in anatomy or physical diagnosis texts have noted that illustrations using male models far exceeded those using female models (1,3). Consequently, investigators have suggested that medical students may be less familiar with female anatomy, and are at risk for becoming biased in perceiving the male body as the "norm" (3,4). The present study seeks to use a similar paradigm to examine whether bias is present in psychiatric texts. While introductory psychiatric textbooks do not typically emphasize anatomic illustrations, authors of psychiatric texts use case vignettes to illustrate psychopathology or management of psychiatric disorders. The frequencies of case vignettes featuring male and female subjects were examined. Introductory level texts were selected, as these are more apt to be used by medical students in psychiatry courses and during clinical clerkships. To our knowledge, no such review of gender bias in psychiatric texts has been done before.

METHODS

Five texts were selected for review of gender bias: Introductory Textbook of Psychiatry (13), Review of General Psychiatry (14), Clinical Manual of Psychiatric Diagnosis and Treatment—A Biopsychosocial Approach (15), DSM-IV Casebook—A Learning Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (16), and Clinical Psychiatry for Medical Students (17). Text selection was based upon common usage for introductory level instruction as well as the presence of case vignettes illustrative of various DSM diagnoses. The most recent editions of the textbooks were used; publication dates were between 1994 and 1995. In addition, two earlier versions of the DSM Casebooks, corresponding to the DSM-III and DSM-III-R (18,19), were assessed for comparison to the most recent edition. We conducted our study in 1997.

The Casebooks consist of a series of case vignettes, each of which is followed by explanations of how psychiatric diagnoses were assigned. Case vignettes in the other textbooks were either offset from the surrounding text by a different print font or were designated by inscriptions such as "case vignette" or "illustrative case."

Each vignette was reviewed to determine the gender of the subject. If the gender of the subject was not discernible, the gender was said to be unspecified. Additionally, if the vignette featured a male and a female subject, for example, a couple presenting with relationship difficulties, then the gender was categorized as "both."

The primary diagnosis illustrated in each of the case vignettes was recorded. Because frequencies for specific psychiatric disorders were apt to be small, disorders illustrated in the vignettes were classified along broad diagnostic categories based on DSM-IV (Table 1). In addition to the broad categories, some specific disorders were also examined separately, including depression and other depressive-related disorders; schizophrenia; psychoses other than schizophrenia; antisocial and borderline personality disorders; and disorders unique to women, for example, postpartum disorders. The number of males and females in each of the diagnostic categories was tabulated. Not all of the texts used case vignettes illustrating each of these diagnoses. An individual vignette may illustrate more than one diagnosis. If more than one was provided, each of the diagnoses was recorded. "Rule out" diagnoses were not recorded, however. Vignettes demonstrating something other than a psychiatric disorder, for example, a defense mechanism or an aspect of psychotherapy, were recorded for purposes of tracking gender; no psychiatric diagnosis was assigned unless clearly delineated in the case illustration.

Comparisons of frequencies of males and females used in each text were subjected to chi-square analyses. Cases with no clear male or female protagonist, that is, classified as "both" or "unspecified," were omitted from statistical analyses because of the small sample size.

RESULTS

A total of 962 case vignettes were examined in the seven texts. Of the vignettes used in the DSM-III and the DSM-III-R Casebooks, 42% and 82%, respectively, were subsequently re-used in the DSM-IV Casebook. Consequently, vignettes in the earlier editions of the Casebook were omitted from composite analyses. Of the remaining 5 texts, 292 vignettes featured male protagonists, 192 featured females, 8 featured both males and females, and 1 featured a patient whose gender was unspecified. The numbers of vignettes with male, female, or both protagonists for each text are outlined in Table 2, along with χ² andprobability values for individual comparisons within each text. The difference observed between the numbers of vignettes featuring males and females combined across the five texts was significantly different (χ²=20.66, df=1, P<0.0001). In all but two texts, the frequencies of male and female protagonists were significantly different (13,17). In one text, the number of vignettes featuring females exceeded those featuring males (17).

In addition, there were 214 vignettes in the DSM-III Casebook and 255 in the DSM-III-R Casebook. Male subjects were featured in 126 (58.9%) and 142 (55.7%) cases, respectively; female subjects were featured in 84 (39.3%) and 109 (42.7%); and both males and females in 4 (1.8% and 1.6%, respectively). Significantly greater numbers of vignettes featured males than females in both texts: χ²=8.40, df=1, P=0.004 and χ²=4.34, df=1, P=0.037, respectively. Compared with the fourth edition of the Casebook, the percentages of female and male subjects remained essentially unchanged (cf. Table 2).

A total of 560 diagnostic categories were illustrated in the vignettes used in the five texts. The frequencies for these diagnostic categories subdivided by gender are summarized in Table 1. Cases featuring both male and female subjects and the one gender-neutral case accounted for nine of the diagnoses, but were not included in Table 1. Of all 493 vignettes examined, only two were illustrative of disorders unique to women's health, that is, postpartum disorders and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. As expected, female subjects tended to be represented in vignettes illustrating somatoform disorders (67.6%), dissociative disorders (62.5%), eating disorders (72.2%), and depressive disorders (50.9%). Females were also depicted in 71.4% of cases depicting factitious disorders and in 50% of cases depicting borderline personality. Otherwise, the remaining vignettes illustrating all other diagnoses featured men predominantly.

DISCUSSION

Of the clinical case vignettes examined in this study, a disproportionate number featured male protagonists. Significant differences in the use of male as compared with female protagonists were observed in all but two of the textbooks.

The preponderance of male subjects was not an artifact of the use of vignettes depicting psychiatric disorders with higher prevalence rates among males. Such disorders, for example, substance-related disorders and antisocial personality, merely accounted for 11% of the vignettes. Those depicting disorders with higher prevalence rates among women accounted for 17.8% of the vignettes reviewed. Interestingly, of all vignettes examined, only 2 (0.4%) dealt with disorders unique to women's health, specifically postpartum disorders and premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

Overall, females tended to be subjects of vignettes illustrating disorders with higher prevalence rates among women; and males were subjects in vignettes illustrating disorders with higher prevalence rates among men. In such cases, protagonist gender was consistent with known epidemiologic trends of psychiatric disorders. However, vignettes illustrating disorders in which the prevalence rates are unknown or are otherwise thought to be equal among men and women tended to feature male subjects. In fairness to the text authors, it is noteworthy that when one breaks down the vignettes in each individual text by diagnosis, the numbers become small, making it difficult to detect whether these trends exist within each individual text.

It is interesting that women are underrepresented in clinical vignettes in psychiatric texts despite their predominance in psychiatric practice (20). Women comprise more than half of the population (2), and more women than men seek medical or psychiatric attention (20).

Despite efforts to draw attention to the need for more gender-equitable educational materials and journal articles in the late 1980s and early 1990s (21,22), several of the texts reviewed herein, although published between 1994 and 1995, continue to display gender bias. While each of the three versions of the DSM Casebooks was updated to correspond to modifications made within the DSM, no significant changes were made with regard to gender bias.

In future editions of psychiatric texts, subject gender in case vignettes should parallel known epidemiologic trends or patterns of psychiatric service utilization. In this way, subject gender will be consistent with trends observed in the clinical setting. When these trends are unknown or unclear, a gender-equitable approach, as was used in two texts examined herein (13,17), can be a consideration.

The tendency to use the male as a chief character has been observed in a variety of texts, from grade school through college. Our study expands on work focusing on gender disparities in other disciplines taught to medical students, for example, anatomy and clinical medicine (1,3). Therefore, the trends observed in this study are not unique to psychiatry and may reflect broader social biases.

The differences in which physicians react to, evaluate, or treat complaints made by male and female patients may be, in part, attributable to prejudices and misrepresentations of disorders as manifested by women in the medical literature (5,23). Previous research has demonstrated that male patients receive more extensive evaluations and follow-up studies than female patients, despite presenting to physicians with identical complaints (24—29). Whether a patient's gender influences the assessment and treatment of their psychiatric condition warrants attention. Furthermore, how this might be communicated in psychiatric texts might be an avenue of further research. It is quite possible that readers may not attend to the gender of subjects in illustrative vignettes or to the frequencies with which male or female subjects are used. The impact of gender disparities, if any, on readers requires further investigation.

Nonetheless, students need to be instructed that gender can enrich our understanding of the individuals seeking treatment, providing a valuable source of epidemiologic and prognostic information. Training in psychiatry should emphasize how the presentation, course, and prognosis of psychiatric disorders may differ for men and women. It is hoped that medical trainees will consequently appreciate gender differences and will be attuned to potential gender biases in other aspects of medical training and, even, clinical research. Scientific study has often used male subjects and assumed generalizability to females (30,31). Ultimately, it is hoped that when men and women are treated differently by physicians, it is based upon an awareness of the aforementioned gender differences, and not faulty assumptions, attributions, or misperceptions about men and women conveyed, implicitly or explicitly, in medical school.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Kim Hughes and Dianne Szczerba for their assistance with data collection and analysis and Linda F. Pessar, M.D., and Jennifer Batterman-Faunce, Ph.D., for editorial suggestions.

TABLE 1. Frequencies of illustrative vignettes by diagnostic categories and gender

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My POL

TABLE 2. Frequencies of subject gender in vignettes used in psychiatric texts

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My POL

References

Giacomini M, Rozee-Koker P, Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell F: Gender bias in human anatomy textbook illustrations. Psychology of Women Quarterly 1986; 10:413—420[CrossRef]

Howell MC: What medical schools teach about women. N Engl J Med 1974; 291:304—307[PubMed][CrossRef]

Mendelsohn KD, Nieman LZ, Isaacs K, et al: Sex and gender bias in anatomy and physical diagnosis text illustrations. JAMA1994; 272:1267— 1270

Nechas E, Foley D. Unequal Treatment: What You Don't Know About How Women Are Mistreated by the Medical Community. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1994, pp. 41—44

Scully D, Bart P: A funny thing happened on the way to the orifice: women in gynecology textbooks. Am J Sociol 1973; 78:283—287

Scott KP, Schau CG: Sex equity and sex bias in instructional materials, in Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education, edited by Klein SS. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985, pp. 218—232

Guttentag M, Guttentag B: Undoing Sex Stereotypes: Research and Resources for Educators. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp. 98—99

Rose C: New Directions for Higher Education: Meeting Women's New Educational Needs. San Franciso, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1975, pp. 5—12

Knell S, Winer GA: Effects of reading content on occupational sex role stereotypes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1979; 14:78—87[CrossRef]

Nilsen AP, Bosmajian H, Gershuny HL, et al: Sexism and Language. Urbana, IL, National Council of Teachers of English, 1977

Yanico BJ: Sex bias in career information: effects of language on attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 1978; 13:26—34[CrossRef]

Minority Health Improvement Act of 1994, House of Representatives Report 103—501, May 11, 1994, Section 604, pp. 51—52

Andreasen NC, Black DW: Introductory Textbook of Psychiatry, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1995

Goldman HH. Review of General Psychiatry, 4th Edition. East Norwalk, CT, Appleton and Lange, 1995

Pies RW: Clinical Manual of Psychiatric Diagnosis and Treatment—A Biopsychosocial Approach. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1994

Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Skodol AE, et al: DSM-IV Casebook—A Learning Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1994

Stoudemire A: Clinical Psychiatry for Medical Students, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1994

Spitzer RL, Skodol AE, Gibbon M, et al: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Case Book, 1st Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1981

Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Skodol AE, et al: DSM-III-R Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Casebook, Revised Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1989

Weissman MM, Klerman GL: Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1977; 34:98—111[PubMed]

Denmark F, Russo NF, Frieze IH, et al: Guidelines for avoiding sexism in psychological research: a report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Nonsexist Research. Am Psychol 1998; 43:582—585

Gannon L, Luchetta T, Rhodes K, et al: Sex bias in psychological research: progress or complacency? Am Psychol 1992; 47:389—396

Lennane KJ, Lennane RJ: Alleged psychogenic disorders in women—a possible manifestation of sexual prejudice. N Engl J Med 1973; 288:288—292[PubMed][CrossRef]

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association: Gender disparities in clinical decision making. JAMA 1991; 266:559—562[PubMed][CrossRef]

Armitage KJ, Schneiderman LF, Bass RA: Response of physicians to medical complaints in men and women. JAMA1979; 241:2186— 2187

Bernstein B, Kane R: Physicians' attitudes toward female patients. Med Care 1981; 19:600—608[PubMed][CrossRef]

Broverman IK, Broverman DM, Clarkson FE, et al: Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970; 34:1—7 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Tobin JN, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Wexler JP, et al: Sex bias in considering coronary bypass surgery. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:19—25[PubMed]

Mendelsohn RS: Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women. Chicago, IL, Contemporary Books, 1981

Cotton P: Examples abound of gaps in medical knowledge because of groups excluded from scientific study. JAMA1990; 263:1051— 1055

Cotton P: Is there still too much extrapolation from data on middle-aged white men? JAMA1990; 263:1049— 1050