Cited by 188LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyElectronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Stage 3 Meaningful Use Guidelines: A Huge Step Forward for LGBT Health

Abstract

Final rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology in October 2015 require electronic health record software certified for Meaningful Use to include sexual orientation and gender identity (SO/GI) fields. This is a critical step toward making SO/GI data collection a standard practice in clinical settings. Sexual orientation identity-whether one identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual-correlates with behavioral health burden, and it is important to collect these data. Providers should also collect sex assigned at birth data as well as current gender identity data. Training of clinical staff in collection and use of SO/GI data, education of LGBT patients, and SO/GI nondiscrimination policies are critical for successful implementation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/lgbt.2015.0136

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Institute of Medicine: Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health Records: Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Cahill, S. R., Baker, K., Deutsch, M. B., Keatley, J., & Makadon, H. J.
Affiliations
  • The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Center for American Progress (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
LGBT Health
Published
2016-04
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
100-102
ISSN
  • 2325-8292 (ISSN-L)
  • 2325-8306
OpenAlex
W2203781811
Cited by
188
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11
FWCI
28.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • LGBT Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
sexual orientation, gender identity, meaningful use, electronic health records, data collection, sex assigned at birth, behavioral health, anti-discrimination policy, clinical staff training, patient education
MeSH terms
Sexual and Gender Minorities, Gender Identity, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Sexual Behavior, United States, Health Status Disparities, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review