ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Exploring the Healthcare Experiences and Preferences of LGBT+ People: An Online Asynchronous Focus Group Study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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.
- Authentic Allyship for Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Patterns of Knowing Perspective in Nursing.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026Article
- Exploring the Healthcare Experiences and Preferences of LGBT+ People: An Online Asynchronous Focus Group Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore experiences of LGBT+ individuals in accessing and receiving healthcare in Ireland, and to identify opportunities for more inclusive and equitable healthcare delivery.
designA descriptive qualitative study using asynchronous online focus groups.
methodsAsynchronous online focus groups were conducted using the MURAL collaborative platform over a three-week period in 2023. Participants (n = 43) self-selected into one of three focus groups based on gender and sexual identity. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to generate key themes.
resultsFour themes were identified: (1) Culturally aware healthcare professionals; (2) Access and information; (3) Specialist versus universal services; and (4) Mental health support. Participants reported frequent experiences of misgendering, heteronormative assumptions, and provider inexperience. Geographic inequities, unclear referral pathways, and a lack of centralised, inclusive information were also key barriers. While specialist services were valued, participants advocated for a dual approach that integrates LGBT+ competence into all healthcare settings.
conclusionDespite legal and social progress, LGBT+ individuals in Ireland continue to encounter significant barriers to equitable healthcare. The findings highlight a need for improved cultural competence, better access to inclusive services, and systemic reform. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare providers must receive comprehensive training in LGBT+ health to ensure respectful, appropriate, and inclusive care. Enhanced visibility of inclusive providers and improved service pathways are needed to address current inequities, particularly in mental health and gender-affirming care. IMPACT: This study identifies key gaps in provider competence, service accessibility, and mental health provision. Findings will inform healthcare education, policy development, and service design to improve experiences and outcomes for LGBT+ individuals in both urban and rural contexts. REPORTING
methodThis study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was involved.
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.