CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 288LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsGender, Sexuality, and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do ask, do tell: high levels of acceptability by patients of routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data in four diverse American community health centers.

Open access
Cahill, Sean, Singal, Robbie, Grasso, Chris, King, Dana, Mayer, Kenneth, Baker, Kellan, Makadon, Harvey·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0107104PMC PMC4157837
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission have recommended asking sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions in clinical settings and including such data in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). This is increasingly viewed as a critical step toward systematically documenting and addressing health disparities affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The U.S. government is currently considering whether to include SOGI data collection in the Stage 3 guidelines for the incentive program promoting meaningful use of EHR. However, some have questioned whether acceptable standard measures to collect SOGI data in clinical settings exist. METHODS: In order to better understand how a diverse group of patients would respond if SOGI questions were asked in primary care settings, 301 randomly selected patients receiving primary care at four health centers across the U.S. were asked SOGI questions and then asked follow-up questions. This sample was mainly heterosexual, racially diverse, and geographically and regionally broad. RESULTS: There was a strong consensus among patients surveyed about the importance of asking SOGI questions. Most of the LGBT respondents thought that the questions presented on the survey allowed them to accurately document their SOGI. Most respondents--heterosexual and LGBT--answered the questions, and said that they would answer such questions in the future. While there were some age-related differences, respondents of all ages overwhelmingly expressed support for asking SOGI questions and understood the importance of providers' knowing their patients' SOGI. CONCLUSIONS: Given current deliberations within national health care regulatory bodies and the government's increased attention to LGBT health disparities, the finding that patients can and will answer SOGI questions has important implications for public policy. This study provides evidence that integrating SOGI data collection into the meaningful use requirements is both acceptable to diverse samples of patients, including heterosexuals, and feasible.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0107104

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Institute of Medicine (2012 12 October) Sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in electronic health records. A workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cahill, S., Singal, R., Grasso, C., King, D., Mayer, K., Baker, K., & Makadon, H.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Center for American Progress (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-09-08
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
e107104
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0107104
PMC
PMC4157837
OpenAlex
W1990171754
Cited by
288
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
24.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (UB2HA20233)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Sexuality, and Education
Keywords
patient acceptability, LGBT health disparities, electronic health records, meaningful use, primary care, community health centers, health policy, age differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Community Health Centers, Data Collection, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Sexual Behavior, United States, Sexuality, Young Adult, Self Report

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