↓ Skip to main content

Touching the private parts: how gender and sexuality norms affect medical students’ first pelvic examination

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Health & Sexuality, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Touching the private parts: how gender and sexuality norms affect medical students’ first pelvic examination
Published in
Culture, Health & Sexuality, June 2016
DOI 10.1080/13691058.2016.1182214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renita Sörensdotter, Karin Siwe

Abstract

Gynaecologists are in a position to challenge norms about gender and sexuality in relation to female genitals. Through their work they have the opportunity to educate patients, which is why teaching medical students to perform examinations in a gender sensitive way is significant. Medical students performing their first pelvic examination often experience the examination as uncomfortable because it is a body part that is connected to sex and to something private. This paper uses medical students' interpretations of performing their first pelvic examination as a means to discuss how cultural norms for gender, sexuality and female genitals affect these examinations. Issues raised include how cultural connotations of female genitals affect the pelvic examination, how female and male students relate differently to examining female genitals and the interpretations they make in relation to themselves. Findings show that the female genitals are perceived as a special body part connected to sexuality and intimacy. Students' gender also affects the interpretations they make during pelvic examinations. Norms of gender, sexuality and female genitals need to be challenged in the teaching and performance of pelvic examination in order to demystify this experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 20%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,433,063
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Health & Sexuality
#89
of 1,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,555
of 355,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Health & Sexuality
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.