Although the question of whether women and men speak differently is a topic of hot debate, an overview of the extent towhich empirical studies provide robust support for a relationship between sex/gender and language is lacking. Therefore, the aim of the current scoping review is to synthesize recent studies from various theoretical perspectives on the relationship between sex/gender and language use in spoken face-to-face dyadic interactions. Fifteen empirical studies were systematically selected for review, and were discussed according to four different theoretical perspectives and associated methodologies. More than thirty relevant linguistic variables were identified (e.g., interruptions and intensifiers). Overall, few robust differences between women and men in the use of linguistic variables were observed across contexts, although women seem to be more engaged in supportive turn-taking than men. Importantly, gender identity salience, institutionalized roles, and social and contextual factors such as interactional setting or conversational goal seem to play a key role in the relationship between speaker’s sex/gender and language used in spoken interaction.

No abstract

PURPOSE Physicians' interruptions have long been considered intrusive, masculine actions that inhibit patient participation, but a systematic analysis of interruptions in clinical interaction is lacking. This study aimed to examine when and how primary care physicians and patients interrupt each other during consultations. METHODSWe coded and quantitatively analyzed interruption type (cooperative vs intrusive) in 84 natural interactions between 17 primary care physicians and 84 patients with common somatic symptoms. Data were analyzed using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, with role, gender, and consultation phase as predictors. RESULTSOf the 2,405 interruptions observed, 82.9% were cooperative. Among physicians, men were more likely to make an intrusive interruption than women (β = 0.43; SE, 0.21; odds ratio [OR] = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.03-2.31), whereas among patients, men were less likely to make an intrusive interruption than women (β = −0.35; SE, 0.17; OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98). Patients' interruptions were more likely to be intrusive than physicians' interruptions in the phase of problem presentation (β = 0.71; SE, 0.23; OR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.30-3.20), but not in the phase of diagnosis and/or treatment plan discussion (β = −0.17; SE, 0.15; OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.63-1.15). CONCLUSIONS Most interruptions in clinical interaction are cooperative and may enhance the interaction. The nature of physicians' and patients' interruptions is the result of an interplay between role, gender, and consultation phase.

Sex and gender are determinants of health outcomes across an individual’s life course. However, often in health research and practice, sex and gender considerations are either overlooked or confounded. Recent developments in health research and practice ask for the inclusion of sex and gender considerations within health research and practice. This article is a reaction to these calls. It explores the ways in which an international team of health researchers created a comic book that highlighted the impact of gender in many areas of health across an individual’s life course. The creative processes are critically explored, as well as selected images. Through this work, it is proposed that comic art knowledge mobilization projects can be viewed as means to transform health research and practice by critiquing and disrupting dominant cis-heteronormative sex and gender discourses.

No abstract