Sex-Specific Conditions, Gender, and Evaluation Using the AMA Guides
Linda Cocchiarella
Search for other papers by Linda Cocchiarella in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Kathryn Mueller
Search for other papers by Kathryn Mueller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Concerns about potential sex and gender bias during impairment and disability evaluations have been raised; this article reviews ways in which sex and gender contribute to the unique presentation, manifestations, treatment, and functional outcome of medical conditions and how these differences can be appropriately addressed using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition. Sex differences are objective and are based on biochemical and biological factors; gender refers to cultural attitudes that are learned and vary by culture, history, and ethnicity. The AMA Guides acknowledges individual variations and advocates a flexible approach: Physicians can choose among sections of the AMA Guides those best suited to account for individual and sex differences. The AMA Guides does not advocate different evaluation of medical conditions based on sex, except for sex-specific disorders (eg, unique male or female reproductive organs). The health care system is striving to eliminate gender and sex bias, and impairment and disability are following by attempting to eliminate bias by offering individualized assessments of how impairment affects the injured organ, use of unique rating methods to fully characterize the impairment, use of rating ranges to account for individual variability and sex, and by ascribing equal values to gender-ascribed activities of daily living.

  • 1.

    Assembly Bill 1643 (Gonzales); Proponents of this legislative cite: Pryor ES. Flawed Promises: A critical evaluation of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Harvard Law Review. 1990; 964:965966 (to support claims of gender bias within the AMA Guides).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Williams D, Bennett K, Feely J. Evidence for an age and gender bias in the secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in primary care. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003; 55(6):604608.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Verdonk P, Benschop YW, de Haes HC, Largro-Janssen TL. From gender bias to gender awareness in medical education. Adv Heath Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009; 14(1):132152.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Maas AHEM, Appelman YEA. Gender differences in coronary heart disease. Neth Heart J. 2010; 18(12):598602.

  • 5.

    Klein SL, Schiebinger L, Stefanick ML, et al.Opinion: sex inclusion in basic research drives discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; 112(17):52575258.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender differences in health. EMBO Rep. 2012; 13(7):596603.

  • 7.

    Wenger NK. The high risk of CHD for women: understanding why prevention is crucial. Medscape Womens Health. 1996; 1(11):6.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 905 905 829
Full Text Views 20 20 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
Save