Comparing medical, dental, and nursing students’ preparedness to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer health

Abstract

BackgroundLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) populations face multiple health disparities including barriers to healthcare. Few studies have examined healthcare trainees’ perceptions of their preparedness to care for LGBTQ populations and none have compared perceptions of training across medicine, dental medicine, and nursing. We aimed to understand variations across disciplines in LGBTQ health by assessing medical, dental, and nursing students’ perceptions of preparedness across three domains: comfort levels, attitudes, and formal training.MethodsWe developed a 12-item survey with an interprofessional panel of LGBTQ students from the schools of medicine, dental medicine, and nursing at a top-tier private university in the United States. Any student enrolled full time in any of the three schools were eligible to respond. We performed descriptive statistical analyses and examined patterns in responses using Kruskal-Wallis tests and an ordered logistic regression model.Results1,010 students from the Schools of Medicine, Dental Medicine, and Nursing responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 43%. While 70–74% of all student respondents felt comfortable treating LGBTQ patients, fewer than 50% agreed that their formal training had prepared them to do so. Overall, 71–81% of students reported interest in receiving formal LGBTQ health education, though dental students were significantly less likely than medical students to report this interest (OR 0.53, p<0.01). Respondents who identified as LGBQ were significantly less likely than heterosexual students to agree that training was effective (OR 0.55, p<0.01) and that their instructors were competent in LGBTQ health (OR 0.56, p<0.01).ConclusionDespite high comfort levels and positive attitudes towards LGBTQ health, most student respondents did not report adequate formal preparation. There were some significant differences between disciplines, but significant gaps in training exist across disciplines. Health professional schools should develop formal content on LGBTQ health and utilize this content as an opportunity for interprofessional training.

A scoping review on social justice education in current undergraduate dental curricula

“…Another reported on curricular time devoted to ethics education in U.S. dental schools and went on to identify factors supporting formal ethics instruction . Furthermore, there was discussion of a “formal curriculum” as compared to an “informal curriculum,” whereby the former encompasses an explicitly planned program, and the latter complements this by involving concepts conveyed through school culture and role‐modeling, among others …”

Oral Sex Knowledge and Experience of Transgender Youth: An Opportunity for Dental Education

“…Similar to HPV, sexual and gender identity are not well covered in predoctoral dental curricula, despite a history of identifying educational gaps in this area. At one institution, compared to nursing and medical students, significantly fewer dental students reported feeling comfortable discussing sexual health 18 . The majority of dental students in that study agreed that their curriculum incorporated relevant lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) content compared to 58% of medical and 55% of nursing students at the same institution.…”

“…As it stands, however, we have found that pediatric dentists only see a small proportion of all youth, with general dentists taking much of the burden for adolescent oral health care. Regardless of specialty, evidence from both transgender youth patients and oral health providers suggests that dentists are not partaking in these conversations and are not well versed on the topics of HPV and sexual and gender identity 14‐19 . Therefore, it is imperative that academic dental institutions give future oral health providers the skills and knowledge to provide culturally competent approaches to reduce disparities and protect the oral and overall health of all youth, but particularly vulnerable populations like transgender youth.…”

Caring for Sexual and Gender Minority Patients: What Factors Explain Self-Reported Competence among Health Care Professional Students?

“…[4][5][6][7][8] Past studies have suggested that more SGM-speci c health training, 5,9,10 personal and professional experiences with SGM people, [11][12][13][14] and certain sociodemographic factors are associated with increased clinician competence in caring for SGM patients. [15][16] Speci cally, identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ); female sex-assigned-at-birth; [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] liberal political a liation; 21,22,27 less religiosity; 9,14,22,28 and less spirituality 29 have predicted more a rming attitudes toward SGM people. Also, younger age, 10 white (versus non-white) race, 18,20,26 and less conservative religion, 9,21,30 have predicted less bias toward SGM people in past samples.…”

“…[15][16] Speci cally, identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ); female sex-assigned-at-birth; [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] liberal political a liation; 21,22,27 less religiosity; 9,14,22,28 and less spirituality 29 have predicted more a rming attitudes toward SGM people. Also, younger age, 10 white (versus non-white) race, 18,20,26 and less conservative religion, 9,21,30 have predicted less bias toward SGM people in past samples. Other variables that have been associated with greater SGM bias include belief in traditional gender roles, 21,31 acceptance of male aggressiveness, 31 racist attitudes, 21 lack of egalitarian humanism, 21 rural residence, 21 and lower educational attainment.…”