We describe the emergence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health as a key area of study and practice for clinicians and public health professionals. We discuss the specific needs of LGBT populations on the basis of the most recent epidemiological and clinical investigations, methods for defining and measuring LGBT populations, and the barriers they face in obtaining appropriate care and services. We then discuss how clinicians and public health professionals can improve research methods, clinical outcomes, and service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

This commentary presents the content and results of a recent symposium held to discuss how resiliencies among gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men, could inform HIV prevention interventions. We outline the argument for including resiliencies in prevention work and present a critique of the deficitbased approached to public health research as it applies to this line of inquiry. The commentary makes the case that HIV prevention work would be more efficacious if it were designed to incorporate naturally occurring resiliencies that manifest among gay male communities rather than primarily using interventions that address vulnerabilities among men who continue to reside in high risk contexts. The commentary concludes by listing a set of resiliency variables and constructs proposed at the meeting that could be tested in theoretically-based investigations to raise resiliencies among gay and bisexual men thereby lowering HIV risks in this population.Keywords Resilience Á MSM health Á Gay and bisexual men Á TheoryIn the summer of 2011, The Fenway Institute of Boston and the University of Pittsburgh Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Health Research convened a meeting of many of the thought leaders in the field of Gay and Bisexual men's health to discuss how resilience among gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men (henceforth referred to simply as gay and bisexual men), could inform HIV prevention interventions. The idea behind the meeting was to outline ways in which resiliencies could be used to move the field forward towards the abatement or elimination of health disparities within this population. The primary goals of this meeting were to raise interest in the study of resilience as a way to improve health outcomes among gay and bisexual men, to learn from community-based programs that were already using resilience-based approaches in their work, and to begin conceptualizing how researchers could adapt and use a resilience-based framework in their study of HIV and other health disparities in gay and bisexual men. We also critically reviewed deficit-based approach to health, focusing on assumptions underlying these methods.Relative to the field of prevention research, communitybased organizations for gay and bisexual men have better recognized that focusing on strengths, resilience, and other protective factors can bring about positive individual and community-level results. However, few community programs have had the resources to test or evaluate their work. To begin to bridge this divide, the meeting organizers brought together leaders in research as well as key informants from resilience-based community programs including Manifest Love, the Harlem United Community AIDS Center (www.harlemunited.org), Easton Mountain (www. eastonmountain.com), Life Lube (www.lifelube.org), and others who have already been using strength-based approaches to promote health among gay and bisexual men. After a day of sharing methods, challenges, questions and results f...

To decrease current increases in HIV/STDs among MSM, new strategies that include community and provider education are needed.

Self-reported race is a significant factor in the severity of UL among women with a family history of UL. Differences in disease presentation between races likely reflect underlying genetic heterogeneity. The affected sister-pair study design can address both epidemiological and genetic hypotheses about UL.

Objectives. To assess the performance of US health centers during the first year of required sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data reporting and to estimate the baseline proportion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients accessing health centers. Methods. We conducted a secondary analysis of SOGI data from 2016. These data were reported by 1367 US health centers caring for 25 860 296 patients in the United States and territories. Results. SOGI data were missing for 77.1% and 62.8% of patients, respectively. Among patients with data, 3.7% identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or something else; 0.4% identified as transgender male or female; 27.5% did not disclose their sexual orientation; and 9.3% did not disclose their gender identity. Conclusions. Although health centers had a high percentage of missing SOGI data in the first year of reporting, among those with data, the percentages of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people were similar to national estimates, and disclosure was more than 70%. Future data collection efforts would benefit from increased training for health centers and improved messaging on the clinical benefits of SOGI data collection and reporting.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people experience significant health disparities across the life course and require health care that addresses their unique needs. Collecting information on the sexual orientation and gender identity (SO/GI) of patients and entering SO/GI data in electronic health records has been recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the Joint Commission, and the Health Resources and Services Administration as fundamental to improving access to and quality of care for LGBTQ people. Most healthcare organizations, however, have yet to implement a system to collect SO/GI data due to multiple barriers. This report addresses those concerns by presenting recommendations for planning and implementing high-quality SO/GI data collection in primary care and other health care practices based on current evidence and best practices developed by a federally qualified health center and leader in LGBTQ health care.

The increasing visibility of transgender people and others who do not conform to traditional gender norms challenges us to think about gender in new ways, and to use new terminology when communicating with patients. People who describe themselves as nonbinary have a gender identity that is not exclusively girl/woman or boy/man. A small but growing body of research indicates they experience high levels of societal victimization and discrimination, and are misun derstood by health care clinicians. Using language that is inclusive of all gender identities can reduce these burdens and barriers. In this essay, we use a case scenario that illustrates ways to interact respectfully and affirmatively with non binary people throughout the patient care experience.

No abstract