SynthesisWomen's health (London, England)
A qualitative systematic review of the implications of desexed language in women's healthcare and healthcare literature.
Synthesis in Women's health (London, England). 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreasing numbers of people identifying as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) have introduced challenges regarding language used in women's healthcare. TGD individuals are defined as those whose gender identity does not align with their sex. This growing patient group has ignited debates over whether language in women's health should be desexed to accommodate TGD individuals, for example, replacing "mother" with "pregnant people." Some argue such language is inclusive, while others are concerned it is inaccurate and disrespectful.
objectiveTo examine the implications of desexed language in women's healthcare and healthcare literature.
designQualitative systematic review synthesising primary research on desexed language in women's healthcare. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsQualitative studies examining desexed language in women's healthcare, published 2010-2024, were included. A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and data analysed thematically.
resultsSix studies were included, with 80 participants, 13 of whom were women who were not TGD. Themes identified: (1) Language and communication - reflecting differing views on desexed language and the importance of consistent definitions of sex and gender identity; (2) Education - gaps in healthcare professionals' confidence highlight the need for improved clinical education on TGD language use; (3) Structural challenges - issues with clinical documentation and environments; and (4) Barriers to care - poor healthcare experiences meaning TGD patients may avoid seeking care.
conclusionThis review highlights the need for resources tailored to TGD individuals, clinician education on personalised language use and improvements to clinical documentation to ensure sex is always recorded, with gender identity included if relevant. Insufficient evidence exists to support universal implementation of desexed language in women's healthcare. Findings suggest it is not well understood or accepted by women who are not TGD and research is needed to understand its impact on wider groups.
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.