Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34556178›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes.

Sally Crowe, Eleanor Barker, Meg Roberts, Lucy Lloyd, Clara M de Barros, Ben Rebelo-Harris, Catherine Meads, Catherine L Saunders

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. International journal of transgender health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sally CroweCrowe Associates Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Eleanor BarkerMedical Library, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Meg RobertsUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Lucy LloydPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Clara M de BarrosResearch Partners, Research Partners, UK.
Ben Rebelo-HarrisResearch Partners, Research Partners, UK.
Catherine MeadsFaculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Catherine L SaundersPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, East Forvie Building, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. ks659@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3127-3218
University of Cambridge · GBAnglia Ruskin University · GB

Funding

NIHR School for Primary Care Research SPCR-2014-10043 Capacity Building Award 10a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers.

methodsGenerally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes.

resultsRapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context.

conclusionsFrom the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Indexed as

LGBT (Q+)Public involvementRapid reviewResearch prioritiesResearch priority setting

Identifiers

PMID34556178
PMCPMC8460395
OpenAlexW3165426786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.