ReviewJournal of lesbian studies2024
Sexual and Reproductive Justice and Health Equity for LGBTQ+ Women.
Review in Journal of lesbian studies, 2024. 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.
- Influences on Transmasculine People's Experiences of Contraceptive Methods and Services in the UK: One-on-One Interviews and a Focus Group.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- LGBTQ+ policies in the United States and mental health: The mediating role of sexual orientation discrimination among sexual minority women and gender diverse individuals assigned female at birth.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2025Article
- Beyond words: operationalizing inclusive language in Australian cervical screening health promotion policy.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- "Give me the sense that I matter:" Queer women's recommendations for an ideal cervical cancer screening exam and pathways to screening equity.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
LGBTQ+ women have long been overlooked in sexual and reproductive health research. However, recent research has established that LGBTQ+ women have unique and specific needs that need to be addressed in order to improve effectiveness of sexual health education and practice with this historically and presently underserved population. Informed by a reproductive justice framework coupled with liberation psychology theory, this review discusses the current state of sexual and reproductive health and technologies among LGBTQ+ women. In particular, we focus on a range of HIV prevention and reproductive technologies and their use and promotion, including the internal condom, abortion, oral contraceptives, dapivirine ring, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, intrauterine device, and other less studied options, such as the contraceptive sponge. Grounded in an intersectional framing, this review acknowledges the intersecting systems of oppression that affect multiply marginalized women inequitably and disproportionately. A sociohistorical, critical lens is applied to acknowledge the well-documented racist origins of reproductive health technologies and ongoing coercive practices that have led to medical mistrust among marginalized and stigmatized communities, particularly racialized LGBTQ+ women, women with disabilities, and women who are poor or incarcerated. Moreover, we discuss the urgent need to center LGBTQ+ women in research and clinical care, community-engaged health promotion efforts, affirming non-heteronormative sexual health education, and health policies that prioritize autonomy and dismantle structural barriers for this population. We conclude with recommendations and future directions in this area to remedy entrenched disparities in health.
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.