ReviewOpen access journal of contraception2023
Breaking the Binary: How Clinicians Can Ensure Everyone Receives High Quality Reproductive Health Services.
Review in Open access journal of contraception, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Just for pregnant women, not for you": a qualitative evaluation of the sexual and reproductive healthcare experiences of transgender and gender diverse cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Caring for the LGBTQIA+ Patient: A Best-Practices Primer on Language, Sexual Function Considerations, and Health Disparities in Gynecologic Care.Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2026Review
- Supporting Sexual and Reproductive Health for Immigrant Families Across the Lifespan.Academic pediatrics · 2024Review
- Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening by Sexual Orientation Among Low-Income Women in North Carolina.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gender binary has historically defined the study and practice of reproductive and sexual healthcare. However, the male and female binary categorization of sex does not adequately define patients seeking reproductive and sexual health. Comprehensive sexual healthcare should consider diverse gender identity and non-heteronormative sexual practices, family planning, sexually transmitted infections, cancer prevention, and sexual function. Recent research suggests clinicians do not feel prepared to provide care for sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients. In this narrative review, we focus on reproductive and sexual health within the scope of obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) clinical practice. We used traditional medical subject headings to summarize data from publications in peer-reviewed journals published in the last 10 years and identified barriers, facilitators and best practices for de-gendering reproductive healthcare. Following a roughly chronological care path across the lifespan, we categorized findings into the following topics: Early Care for SGM, Sexual Health, Family Planning, and Care Later in Life for SGM. We include recommendations for creating a welcoming environment, SGM inclusive training for clinicians and staff, and best practices for individualized counseling. We review suggested practices related to service delivery and clinical considerations in the provision of sexual and reproductive health care for gender and sexual minority patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.