Scoping review maps educational outcomes and implementation factors of Gynaecology Teaching Associates in medical training, highlighting implications for future practice.
BACKGROUND: Pelvic examination is a core, yet anxiety-provoking, clinical skill in undergraduate medical education. Traditional teaching approaches-often opportunistic or reliant on simulation-have been criticised for disembodying technical skill from relational and ethical practice. Gynaecology Teaching Associates (GTAs), trained educators who use their own bodies to teach and provide embodied feedback, have emerged as an alternative model. This scoping review aimed to map what is known about GTAs, whose perspectives are represented, and what factors influence implementation. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's framework and prospectively registered. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Scopus (June 2025) were supplemented by citation tracking and grey literature searches. English-language sources focused on GTAs were included, with no date restriction. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers, with thematic synthesis conducted inductively. FINDINGS: Eighty-three sources were included. Four interrelated domains were identified: educational outcomes, finance, ethics and representation/standardisation. GTA programmes are consistently associated with reduced student anxiety, improved confidence and enhanced communication skills, though evidence is frequently short-term and self-reported. Financial constraints and logistical complexity present ongoing barriers. Ethically, GTAs are positioned as an advance on historical practices, yet concerns regarding GTA well-being and labour persist. Standardisation improves programme quality but may inadvertently narrow representations of bodily diversity. IMPLICATIONS: GTAs represent a pedagogically and ethically significant approach to pelvic examination teaching. Future research should prioritise longitudinal, multi-institutional evaluation, clearer definitions of effectiveness, patient-centred outcomes and co-produced standards to support sustainable, equitable implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelly et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: