Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176034›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

The inclusion of LGBTQ + people within UK health policy: a critical discourse analysis.

Debbie Braybrook, William E Rosa, Charlotte Norman, Richard Harding, Katherine Bristowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Debbie BraybrookCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
William E RosaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Charlotte NormanCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Richard HardingCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Katherine BristoweCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. Katherine.bristowe@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policymakers can leverage change to improve equity in access to care, patient experiences and clinical outcomes. Despite legal progress to reduce health inequalities, social and systemic injustices persist and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ+) people have increased risk of some health conditions and poorer health outcomes linked to the discrimination they experience. In 2022, 42 regional integrated care systems were created across England to reduce health inequalities and improve the wellbeing of their local population.

methodsThis study aimed to examine the inclusion of UK Equality Act (2010) protected characteristics within the 42 publicly available integrated care system strategies, and to consider specifically how LGBTQ + communities and their needs, experiences and outcomes are framed within these strategies. A Critical Discourse Analysis was conducted positioned within a social constructivist paradigm.

resultsAlmost all strategies talked about the needs of their populations in terms of age (42/42), disability (42/42), gender (41/42), ethnicity (39/42) and maternity or pregnancy (39/32). 27/42 strategies mentioned religion. There were no references to marital status. 22/42 strategies referred to LGBTQ + people, but only around 25% of those references provided context about the specific needs of LGBTQ + people, the health inequities they face, or services for LGBTQ + people. Regarding gender minorities, there were eight mentions of trans people and no mentions of intersex people, despite some policies using the acronym LGBQTI. While there were two mentions of inequities in care delivery for trans people, the specific health or social care needs of trans people were not described in any strategies, and there were a small number of examples where trans people were presented in a problematizing frame; with no discussion of trans inclusive care, only problems associated with being trans. Across all 42 strategies there were only four references to systemic forces (e.g. homophobia, transphobia, discrimination) affecting LGBTQ + people.

conclusionsWhile the needs of some minoritized groups are well recognized within health policies, LGBTQ + people remain marginalized. Further work is needed to educate and enable policy makers to advocate for LGBTQ + people and communities, and to ensure equitable and respectful inclusion of all minoritised groups.

Indexed as

Health PolicySexual and Gender MinoritiesAdultFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleUnited KingdomHealth policyLGBTQIA+Minority healthQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40176034
PMCPMC11966894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.