Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fertil Steril. 2021 May;115(5):1294-1301. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.12.002. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
To characterize the patient and provider perspectives on cultural competence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) fertility care.
Systematic review.
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): LGBTQ+ patients and their partners treated for fertility-related care; fertility providers who treat LGBTQ+ patients.
INTERVENTION(S): We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines of six databases: Medline-OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and PsycInfo. Citations of full-text articles were hand-searched using the Scopus database. Eligible studies were assessed using the Risk of Bias Instrument for Cross-Sectional Surveys of Attitudes and Practices, as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. All screening, extraction, and appraisal were completed in duplicate with two independent reviewers.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Patient-reported or provider-reported views on LGBTQ+ cultural competence in fertility care, including barriers and facilitators to inclusive care.
RESULT(S): Of the 1,747 original database citations, we included 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Of the 21 studies that evaluated patient perspectives, 13 studies targeted same-sex cisgender couples while the remainder targeted transgender and gender-nonconforming participants (n = 6) or any individual who identified as a sexual or gender minority (n = 2). Key barriers for LGBTQ+ participants included gender dysphoria, heteronormativity, stigmatization, and psychological distress. The lack of tailored information for LGBTQ+ populations was repeatedly highlighted as a concern. Promising solutions included tailored information, psychosocial interventions, gender-neutral language, and inclusive intake processes.
CONCLUSION(S): LGBTQ+ individuals face unique barriers in fertility care, as described by both patients and providers. This review describes a number of implementable solutions for equitable care, which should be given priority for both research and hospital interventions.
描述患者和提供者对女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别和 queer(LGBTQ+)生育护理中文化能力的看法。
系统评价。
不适用。
接受与生育相关护理治疗的 LGBTQ+患者及其伴侣;治疗 LGBTQ+患者的生育提供者。
我们按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,对六个数据库进行了系统评价:Medline-OVID、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane 图书馆、ClinicalTrials.Gov 和 PsycInfo。使用 Scopus 数据库对全文文章的参考文献进行了手工搜索。使用跨学科态度和实践调查风险工具以及 Joanna Briggs 研究所定性研究批判性评价清单评估合格研究。所有筛查、提取和评估均由两名独立审查员重复进行。
患者报告或提供者报告的生育护理中 LGBTQ+文化能力的观点,包括包容性护理的障碍和促进因素。
在 1747 条原始数据库引文的基础上,我们纳入了符合纳入标准的 25 项研究。在评估患者观点的 21 项研究中,有 13 项研究针对的是同性顺性别夫妇,其余的则针对跨性别和性别不符合者参与者(n=6)或任何自我认同为性少数群体或性别少数群体的个体(n=2)。LGBTQ+参与者面临的主要障碍包括性别焦虑、异性恋规范、污名化和心理困扰。反复强调缺乏针对 LGBTQ+人群的定制信息是一个令人关注的问题。有前途的解决方案包括定制信息、心理社会干预、中性语言和包容的入学流程。
正如患者和提供者所描述的那样,LGBTQ+个人在生育护理中面临独特的障碍。本综述描述了许多实现公平护理的可执行解决方案,这些解决方案应优先考虑研究和医院干预。