Scoping review maps gender-inclusive language teaching in healthcare education

Language shapes clinical encounters long before any examination begins, and a new systematic map of the literature suggests that the words healthcare professionals learn to use may determine whether LGBTQ+ patients feel safe enough to return. A scoping review published in BMC Medical Education by researchers at the University of Aberdeen’s Centre for Healthcare Education Research and Innovation has brought together the evidence on how gender-inclusive language is taught across medical, nursing and allied health education, and the picture it paints is one of motivated learners, promising teaching methods and stubborn structural barriers. The team, led by Vidyut Chattopadhyay with colleagues Mehak Chandanani and Kim A. Walker, systematically searched three major research databases and identified twenty-six studies that met their inclusion criteria, making this the most comprehensive mapping exercise to date on a topic that has previously remained fragmented across disciplines and journals.

The technical premise of the review rests on a well-documented clinical problem. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals experience unique healthcare challenges, and the authors argue that these disparities are actively exacerbated by non-inclusive or stigmatising language within clinical settings. Misgendering a transgender patient, assuming a partner’s gender or defaulting to binary forms can signal that a healthcare environment is unsafe, discouraging disclosure and delaying care. Because healthcare professionals’ education is the pipeline through which clinical communication norms are transmitted, the review positioned curricula as a critical lever for fostering inclusive communication. Yet, as the authors note, existing curricula remain inconsistent and underexplored, which is precisely the gap a scoping review is designed to address.

Methodologically, the review followed a rigorous scoping framework. The researchers conducted a systematic search of Embase, OVID MEDLINE and Scopus, three of the largest bibliographic databases covering health sciences literature. Eligibility criteria required studies to focus on the education of healthcare professionals across disciplines and to address gender-inclusive language as either a primary or secondary outcome. This dual-outcome design was deliberate: many educational studies touch on inclusive language only in passing, and excluding them would have discarded valuable contextual evidence. From each eligible study, the team extracted data on study characteristics, educational interventions, outcomes and barriers, allowing them to map not just what is being taught but how, to whom and with what measured effect.

The twenty-six included studies revealed a striking diversity of teaching modalities. Interventions ranged from in-person lectures and online modules to small-group discussions, simulation exercises and panel discussions involving individuals with lived experience of gender diversity. This modality pluralism matters because adult learning theory suggests that communication skills are acquired through repeated practice and feedback rather than passive absorption of guidelines. The review found that these varied approaches consistently improved learners’ self-reported confidence and knowledge of inclusive language, indicating that the educational signal is robust across formats. Learners, in other words, demonstrate genuine motivation to engage with gender-inclusive education when given the opportunity.

Among the modalities, those incorporating lived experience emerged as particularly promising. Panel discussions featuring individuals who have navigated healthcare as LGBTQ+ patients appear to convert abstract etiquette guidelines into memorable human encounters, a mechanism consistent with contact hypothesis research on prejudice reduction. Simulation-based teaching similarly offers low-stakes rehearsal environments where learners can practise pronoun usage and anatomically accurate, gender-neutral terminology without fear of harming a real patient. The review’s authors suggest that interventions combining lived experience with multiple teaching modalities show the most promise, though they caution that the evidence base does not yet permit definitive ranking of one format over another.

However, the review uncovered a critical measurement gap that tempers optimism about the field’s maturity. While self-reported confidence and knowledge improved across interventions, long-term behavioural change was rarely measured. This distinction is technically significant because self-efficacy and actual clinical behaviour are known to diverge, particularly in communication skills where situational pressure, time constraints and institutional culture can override training. Without longitudinal follow-up tracking whether learners actually use inclusive language with patients months or years after graduation, the field cannot demonstrate that its interventions produce durable change. The authors identify this as a priority for further research, alongside the need for clarity on the most efficacious teaching modality.

Curriculum coverage of LGBTQ+ topics proved inconsistent across the included studies, often fragmented or optional rather than integrated and compulsory. This finding aligns with broader literature on the hidden curriculum, the informal transmission of norms through institutional culture, which the review’s own keyword list highlights. When inclusive language is relegated to elective sessions or single lectures, learners may infer that it is peripheral to professional competence. The inconsistency also complicates assessment: the review identified a lack of standardized assessment tools as a key barrier, meaning educators cannot reliably measure whether learning objectives around inclusive communication have been met, and programme evaluation across institutions becomes nearly impossible to compare.

The structural barriers documented in the review extend beyond assessment. Limited curricular time emerged as a recurring constraint, a familiar problem in packed professional programmes where every new topic competes with established content. More provocatively, the review documented conflicts between personal beliefs and professional responsibilities as a barrier to implementation. This tension sits at the heart of medical professionalism: educators and learners alike must navigate situations where private convictions collide with the obligation to provide respectful care to all patients. The review does not resolve this conflict but maps it honestly, showing that gender-inclusive language education cannot succeed through content delivery alone if institutional culture and individual resistance remain unaddressed.

The review’s conclusions point toward a research agenda rather than a finished prescription. Learners are motivated, interventions incorporating lived experience and multiple modalities show promise, but evidence of sustained behaviour change is limited and curricula remain inconsistent. The authors suggest that further research could provide clarity on the most efficacious teaching modality, a question that will require head-to-head comparisons with standardized outcome measures. For educators, the immediate implication is that integrating inclusive language across curricula, rather than confining it to optional sessions, and developing validated assessment instruments are actionable steps supported by the current evidence. For patients, the stakes are concrete: communication that affirms rather than stigmatises may determine whether LGBTQ+ individuals engage with healthcare at all.

Published open access under a Creative Commons Attribution licence, the review by Chattopadhyay, Chandanani and Walker received no external funding and involved no competing interests, and it was published on 17 October 2026 after being received in May and accepted in early October of the same year. As a scoping review, it maps the terrain rather than pooling effect sizes, and its twenty-six studies represent the visible portion of a literature that remains uneven in quality and outcome measurement. What the mapping exercise demonstrates is that the educational infrastructure for gender-inclusive language exists in nascent form, that learners respond positively when it is deployed, and that the field’s next phase must prove durability. Whether the next generation of healthcare professionals communicates inclusively by default may depend on how quickly research converts promising signals into standardized, compulsory and longitudinally evaluated training.

Subject of Research: Gender inclusive language in healthcare professionals’ education: a scoping review

Article Title: Gender inclusive language in healthcare professionals’ education: a scoping review

Article References: Chattopadhyay, V., Chandanani, M., & Walker, K. A. (2026). Gender inclusive language in healthcare professionals’ education: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10576-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10576-1

Keywords: LGBTQ+ health, healthcare education, gender-inclusive language, medical education, scoping review, health disparities, curriculum design, Gender, inclusive, language, healthcare, professionals