SynthesisBMJ open2026
Disclosure experiences in LGBTQ+ healthcare staff: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWorkplace disclosure of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) identity by healthcare employees is an understudied area and existing reviews of LGBTQ+ disclosure in the healthcare sector focus on patient perspectives, overlooking the unique challenges that healthcare professionals encounter. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-synthesis of existing qualitative studies exploring disclosure experiences of LGBTQ+ healthcare employees.
methodThe literature search integrated current research from 2011 to March 2023 and focused on qualitative studies exploring disclosure experiences of LGBTQ+ healthcare professionals. Ovid served as the primary platform for literature searches, supplemented by forward and backward citation tracking and additional searches in academic databases such as Google Scholar and Scopus. The studies underwent quality evaluation using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2022 checklist and were synthesised using thematic analysis.
resultsThe findings revealed seven studies with five prominent themes: (1) risk associated with disclosure, (2) making the decision to disclose, (3) cost of non-disclosure, (4) cost of disclosure and (5) benefit of disclosure. Additionally, five critical factors of disclosure were identified: level, scope, time, elements and method. Finally, the risk-benefit analysis underscored the dilemma and balance between authenticity and conformity, largely influenced by pervasive heteronormativity, resulting in a significant mental toll.
conclusionsThe findings must be interpreted considering certain limitations, such as the lack of generalisability of studies. However, the findings emphasise the critical need for cultivating trusting and accepting healthcare work environments for LGBTQ+ staff.
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.