ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Evaluating the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine's recommended sexual orientation and gender identity questions: community perceptions.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Findings from Two Online Experiments to Advance the Science on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Measurement: An Application to Estimating Cigarette Relighting Behaviors.Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) developed items to collect sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in healthcare settings to harmonize collection of these data and address disparities often experienced by sexual and gender minorities (SGM) (LGBTQAI+). This study tested wording of SOGI items among the SGM Community.
methodsIndividuals were recruited to participate in an interview about the NASEM SOGI items. Eligible participants identified as SGM, lived within the catchment area of an NYC academic medical center, had a history of cancer, or were caregivers of a person with cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively coded.
resultsThirty-eight SGM individuals participated. The majority disliked the options for sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) but did find one they would choose. For SO, participants thought options like queer, pansexual, and asexual were missing, and for GI, participants said non-binary and transgender category (transgender man, transgender woman) were needed. Half said they had no concerns about disclosing SOGI information on medical intake forms and others reported preferring knowing why it was needed and who would have access. Several expressed worry about their safety upon disclosure of SOGI. Respondents cited being less likely to disclose SOGI if there was an offensive question on intake form (e.g., spouse instead of partner) or if there were no privacy assurances. Almost all expected reported SOGI to be reflected in their oncology healthcare.
conclusionsThe NASEM questions need improvement. To improve trust and encourage disclosure, clinicians and clinics should improve the options for SOGI data collection and take steps to ensure privacy is addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41345789What 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.