Gender-Specific Medicine (GSM): Knowledge Needs. A Survey for Healthcare Professionals of ASL CN2

Abstract

A total of 404 employees responded to the survey aimed at identifying knowledge needs related to Gender-Specific Medicine (GSM), representing approximately 23.7% of staff within the relevant professional profiles. The level of participation can be considered adequate for descriptive purposes and to guide initial organisational reflections. Overall, respondents were predominantly female, with a strong presence of nursing and medical professionals, mainly employed in hospital wards. More than seven out of ten respondents reported having only a general understanding of GSM, while fewer than one in ten stated that they possessed an in-depth knowledge of the subject. Most respondents indicated that they had never received specific training, nor were they familiar with guidelines or relevant regulations. At the same time, a broad and widespread interest in further learning clearly emerged. Awareness of gender differences in clinical practice is present but still fragmented and inconsistent; the prevailing perception is that GSM is not systematically embedded in organisational procedures and that its application largely depends on the individual professional’s sensitivity and the specific work context. The areas in which respondents reported significant gender-related differences include treatment adherence, psychological support, access to care, and the diagnostic process. The sample shows marked uncertainty regarding research in the field of GSM: the vast majority stated that they did not know whether evidence exists that has not yet been translated into practice, with greater awareness among medical/dental professionals (17.7% affirmative responses). A similar pattern was observed in relation to the question on the existence of research topics that remain unexplored. The aspects of care identified as needing strengthening include treatment planning and doctor–patient communication, followed by prevention/complications and equitable access to services. The interventions considered most urgent were staff training, awareness-raising campaigns, and the development of dedicated guidelines and care pathways.