ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Patient care practices for LGBTQ+ individuals in clinical genetics: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. 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.
- Navigating identity and professional life: A qualitative study of LGBTQ+ genetic counselors' workplace experiences.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Situating genetic counseling research: The role of the sociopolitical climate in research production and interpretation.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patient Perspectives on Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Gender-Affirming Top Surgeries.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Patient care practices for LGBTQ+ individuals in clinical genetics: A scoping review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
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
Individuals who are LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, and/or have a sexual orientations and/or gender identity beyond cisheteronormative conceptions) face systemic barriers to healthcare, leading to significant health inequities. To address these challenges, genetic providers must better understand and inclusively address LGBTQ+ patient needs. This scoping review aims to map the current landscape of genetic care practices and their inclusivity toward LGBTQ+ individuals. We conducted a systematic search of databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, identifying 65 relevant articles focused on LGBTQ+ patient experiences and care practices within genetic healthcare services. Our thematic analysis of the articles highlights three major themes: exclusionary clinical environments and tools, provider biases and educational needs, and patient-reported barriers in accessing genetic services. Many articles underscored the importance of inclusive language and criticized the conflation of sex, sex chromosomes, and gender. A significant focus was on cancer care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals, revealing a need for more data on the effects of gender-affirming care on cancer risk assessment. Moreover, genetic counselors often report insufficient training in LGBTQ+ health needs, contributing to biases and knowledge gaps. Despite increased awareness among providers of the need for inclusive care, LGBTQ+ patients encounter substantial barriers, including medical distrust and limited family health history, which may deter them from disclosing their identities due to the risk of discrimination. This review calls for standardized data collection practices regarding sex-related variables, gender modality, and sexual orientation, alongside specialized training programs for providers. By emphasizing critical areas for research, policy changes, and education, we aim to promote equitable, patient-centered genetic services for LGBTQ+ communities.
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.