ArticleBMJ open2026
Impact of sexual and gender minority (SGM) identity on specialty choice, career trajectory and the physician workforce: a systematic review protocol.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals remain underrepresented across several medical specialties and leadership positions. Training environments in medical school and residency may shape specialty choice and career development for SGM individuals through experiences of discrimination and pressures related to identity disclosure. The literature remains fragmented across stages of training and specialties, limiting understanding of how these factors collectively shape physician workforce composition. We aim to investigate and synthesise the existing literature examining the association between SGM identity and specialty choice, career trajectory and physician workforce outcomes among medical trainees and physicians. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guideline, and the final review will be reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. A comprehensive search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid APA PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to March 2026. Eligible studies will include primary empirical research examining SGM medical trainees or physicians. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using design-specific tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Outcomes will include specialty choice, career trajectory, workforce representation, training environment, identity disclosure, discrimination, mentorship and professional well-being. Given anticipated heterogeneity, findings will be synthesised using a structured narrative and thematic approach. At initial protocol submission, the literature search had been completed; study screening had not yet commenced. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this systematic review will use data from previously published studies and will not involve human participants or collection of individual-level data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presentations at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261347745.
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.