» Articles » PMID: 32947116

Using Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Electronic Health Records to Assess for Disparities in Preventive Health Screening Services

Overview
Date 2020 Sep 18
PMID 32947116
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) populations have an increased risk of multiple adverse health outcomes. Capturing patient data on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the electronic health record (EHR) can enable healthcare organizations to identify inequities in the provision of preventive health screenings and other quality of care services to their LGBTQ patients. However, organizations may not be familiar with methods for analyzing and interpreting SOGI data to detect health disparities.

Purpose: To assess an approach for using SOGI EHR data to identify potential screening disparities of LGBTQ patients within distinct healthcare organizations.

Methods: Five US federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) retrospectively extracted three consecutive months of EHR patient data on SOGI and routine screening for cervical cancer, tobacco use, and clinical depression. The screening data were stratified across SOGI categories. Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact test were used to identify statistically significant differences in screening compliance across SOGI categories within each FQHC.

Results: In all FQHCs, cervical cancer screening percentages were lower among lesbian/gay patients than among bisexual and straight/heterosexual patients. In three FQHCs, cervical cancer screening percentages were lower for transgender men than for cisgender (i.e., not transgender) women. Within each FQHC, we observed statistically significant associations (P < 0.05) between SOGI categories and at least one screening measure. The small number of transgender patients, and limitations in EHR functionality, created challenges in interpretation of SOGI data.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first published report of using SOGI data from EHRs to detect potential disparities in healthcare services to LGBTQ patients. Our finding that lesbian/gay and transgender male patients had lower cervical cancer screening rates compared to heterosexual, bisexual, and cisgender women, is consistent with the research literature and suggests that using SOGI EHR data to detect preventive screening disparities has value. EHR functionality should allow for cross-checking gender identity with sex assigned at birth to reduce errors in data interpretation. Additional functionality, like clinical decision support based on anatomical inventories rather than gender identity, is needed to more accurately identify services that transgender patients need.

Citing Articles

Interventions and Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening, Treatment, and Retention in Care among Persons with HIV in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Mittal R, Kabel K, Fertig M, Lee J, Mosery N, Githaiga J AIDS Behav. 2025; .

PMID: 40055221 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-025-04678-y.


Cancer screening attendance rates in transgender and gender-diverse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chan A, Jamieson C, Draper H, OCallaghan S, Guinn B BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024; 29(6):385-393.

PMID: 38986576 PMC: 11671899. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112719.


Impact of sex used for assignment of reference intervals in a population of patients taking gender-affirming hormones.

Krasowski M, Hines N, Imborek K, Greene D J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2024; 36:100350.

PMID: 38737625 PMC: 11087993. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcte.2024.100350.


Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias.

Perets O, Stagno E, Yehuda E, McNichol M, Celi L, Rappoport N medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38680842 PMC: 11046491. DOI: 10.1101/2024.04.09.24305594.


Utilization of electronic health record sex and gender demographic fields: a metadata and mixed methods analysis.

Foer D, Rubins D, Nguyen V, McDowell A, Quint M, Kellaway M J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024; 31(4):910-918.

PMID: 38308819 PMC: 10990507. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocae016.


References
1.
Grasso C, Goldhammer H, Funk D, King D, Reisner S, Mayer K . Required Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Reporting by US Health Centers: First-Year Data. Am J Public Health. 2019; 109(8):1111-1118. PMC: 6611113. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305130. View

2.
Grasso C, McDowell M, Goldhammer H, Keuroghlian A . Planning and implementing sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018; 26(1):66-70. PMC: 6657380. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocy137. View

3.
Pinto A, Glattstein-Young G, Mohamed A, Bloch G, Leung F, Glazier R . Building a Foundation to Reduce Health Inequities: Routine Collection of Sociodemographic Data in Primary Care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016; 29(3):348-55. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150280. View

4.
Deutsch M, Green J, Keatley J, Mayer G, Hastings J, Hall A . Electronic medical records and the transgender patient: recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health EMR Working Group. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(4):700-3. PMC: 3721165. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001472. View

5.
Charkhchi P, Schabath M, Carlos R . Modifiers of Cancer Screening Prevention Among Sexual and Gender Minorities in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16(4 Pt B):607-620. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.02.042. View