ArticlePloS one2025
Insufficient LGBTQ+ education across disciplines suggested by national survey of health professionals in training.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- LGBTQ+ individuals' experiences of initial identity disclosure in primary healthcare services: a qualitative scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Factors associated with gay-affirmative practice among polish paramedics: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health professionals often feel underprepared to treat patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+). Additionally, lack of access to professionals who are knowledgeable about LGBTQ+ inclusive care contributes to the myriad of health disparities experienced by LGBTQ+ communities. This cross-sectional survey study explores the preparedness of healthcare profession trainees for caring for LGBTQ+ patients by quantifying the hours and quality of training health profession trainees receive in LGBTQ+ education across disciplines. We surveyed US-based health professionals in training (HPiT) across disciplines (N = 155) on their training programs' LGBTQ+-specific curricula and educational opportunities. Ordered logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between the number of hours of LGBTQ+-specific education and other discipline, organization, and individual factors. Respondents reported an average of 4.75 (SD = 3.04) hours devoted to LGBTQ+-specific education. Physician assistant trainees reported receiving the highest number of hours of LGBTQ+-specific education (M = 6.63, SD = 1.98), followed by psychology (M = 5.30, SD = 3.54), medical (M = 5.12, SD = 3.38), nursing (M = 4.17, SD = 3.28), and trainees in other health fields (M = 3.88, SD = 2.47). Across all disciplines, trainees rated their LGBTQ+-specific education on average as "good". Despite rising awareness, the quantity and quality of dedicated LGBTQ+-specific education remains concerningly low across all measured disciplines and US regions. Future research must investigate strategies to overcome common barriers to increasing LGBTQ+ education in health professions training by maximizing the impact of limited hours through integrating LGBTQ+ content into existing materials, supporting trainee leadership, and implementing institutional support for educators teaching LGBTQ+ content. Regulatory bodies must reconsider the current guidance for LGBTQ+ education quantity and quality to advise institutions on best-practice guidelines to prepare trainees for LGBTQ+ patient care.
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.