Table 4

Comparison of education on LGBT content between Japan, the USA and Canada, and Australia and New Zealand

JapanUSA and Canada14 Australia and New Zealand15
Number of responders/total number of schools (proportion) 59/82 (72%)132/176 (75%)15/21 (71%)
Methods of teaching LGBT content n (proportion)
LGBT-specific content in the required preclinical curriculum†Interspersed19 (32.8%)88 (66.7%)*9 (60.0%)
Discrete modules11 (19.0%)32 (24.2%)5 (33.3%)
Lectures or small-group sessions in the required clinical curriculum‡12 (20.3%)79 (59.8%)*2/1¶¶ (13.3%/6.7%)
Clinical clerkship site that is specifically designed to
facilitate LGBT patient care§		Required clerkship0 (0.0%)7 (5.3%)5*** (33.3%)
Elective clerkship0 (0.0%)12 (9.1%)**7*** (46.7%)
Faculty development for teaching about LGBT health¶5 (8.5%)27 (20.5%)0 (0.0%)
Coverage of LGBT content n (proportion)
Asking about same-sex relations when obtaining sexual history**13 (22.0%)128 (97.0%)*12 (80.0%)
Teaching difference between behaviour and identity††17 (28.8%)95 (72.0%)*10 (66.7%)
At least half of 16 LGBT-related topics covered in elective or required curriculum‡‡15 (29.4%)99 (75.0%)*–
Evaluation of coverage of LGBT content (very poor/poor)§§45 (79.0%)34 (25.8%)*3 (20.0%)

  • Items on methods of teaching LGBT content and coverage of LGBT content were cited from or corresponding to questions 2–5, and 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the questionnaire by Obedin-Maliver et al. 14

  • *P<0.01; **p<0.05 for comparison of the proportions of schools that answered yes between Japan and USA/Canada.

  • †Number of respondents answering ‘Do not know’/missing value among Japanese responses: 3/1

  • ‡11/0

  • §0/0

  • ¶4/0

  • **17/0

  • ††10/0

  • ‡‡0/8

  • §§3/2

  • ¶¶Two schools had lectures and one had small-group sessions. Sanchez et al asked separately about lectures and small-group sessions.15

  • ***Two schools had clinical rotation site as a required clinical rotation, four as an elective and three as both.15

  • LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.