Workplace Climate for Sexual and Gender Minorities in Athletic Training.

contextSexual and gender minorities (SGMs) are individuals with sexual orientations, gender identities, or expressions (or a combination of these) that differ from cultural norms. Sexual and gender minorities often face workplace discrimination and report decreased physical and emotional well-being from discrimination.

objectiveTo explore the workplace climate of SGM athletic trainers (ATs).

designSequential mixed-methods study.

settingWeb-based survey and interviews. PATIENTS OR OTHER

participantsCriterion sampling of SGM ATs (117 survey participants and 12 interview participants). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We modified the LGBTQ Inclusion Assessment and the Organizational Self-Assessment for the survey and developed a semistructured interview script (scale-level content validity index = 0.94). We used means ± SDs, frequencies (%), and the consensual qualitative research tradition to characterize participant responses. Trustworthiness was established through reflexivity (researchers checking bias throughout the research process), member-checking, multianalyst triangulation, and internal and external auditing.

resultsParticipants indicated their workplace was inclusive (24 [20.5%]), somewhat inclusive (29 [24.8%]), or not inclusive (14 [12.0%]) or did not indicate at all (50 [42.7%]). Respondents most often noted they were unsure of which stage of change their organizations and organizational units were in addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, pansexual, intersex, asexual, 2-spirit, and all within the community of queer and transspectrum identities (LGBTQPIA+) concerns in the workplace as well as specific actions taken for inclusion. Two domains emerged from the interview data: safety and inclusion. The safety domain represented aspects of the workplace climate that made participants feel safe and includes organizational initiatives (12/12), patient-centered policies (7/12), local and federal regulations (7/12), and signaling (12/12). The inclusion domain represented how participants felt a sense of belonging to the organization through their own experience (12/12), through the experiences of their patients (9/12), and through an infrastructure designed for inclusion (12/12). Participants expressed both affirmative and negative feelings of safety and inclusion throughout their responses.

conclusionsOrganizations must take both structural and cultural actions to address the concerns of exclusion and lack of safety.