Experiences, Values, and Beliefs of Healthcare Providers in Caring for the Sexual and Gender Diverse: A Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Persistent health inequities continue to affect sexual and gender diverse (SGD) individuals in healthcare settings. Despite increasing awareness and equity efforts, SGD populations face stigma, discrimination, and inadequate culturally safe care. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a critical role in shaping these experiences, yet limited qualitative evidence exists—particularly within the Canadian context. This review will explore the experiences, values, and beliefs of HCPs when providing care to SGD individuals, with a focus on how sexual and gender identity shapes these provider perspectives, independent of specific disease contexts. Objectives: To synthesize qualitative evidence on HCP experiences in caring for SGD populations, with attention to how provider values and beliefs influence care delivery. This review centers on SGD identity as the key factor influencing provider experience, excluding studies focused primarily on disease-specific care. Methods: This protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for qualitative systematic reviews, and the title of this review has been registered with Campbell Systematic Reviews (Registration Number: CL2.20250022). This protocol builds upon the review title previously registered with the Campbell Collaboration under the title “Health Care Provider’s Experiences, Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs, and How These Relate to Improving the Experiences of the Sexual and Gender Diverse When They Seek Care: A Qualitative Systematic Review.” A comprehensive search strategy, developed with a health sciences librarian, will be implemented across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LGBTQ+ Source, and the Gender Studies Database. No language restrictions will be applied. Studies will be included if they report qualitative data from regulated HCPs who have provided care or support to SGD individuals in any healthcare setting. Studies primarily focused on provider experiences with specific diseases [e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), cancer, mental illness] will be excluded unless SGD identity is the central focus. Two reviewers will independently screen, appraise studies using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist, and extract data using a standardized tool. Meta-aggregation in JBI SUMARI will be used for synthesis, and the ConQual approach will assess confidence in the findings. The review process and reporting will follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews. Conclusion: This review will generate evidence-based insights into how HCPs experience and conceptualize care for SGD individuals. The findings will support the development of strategies to implement cultural humility in healthcare settings, promoting more equitable and inclusive care for SGD populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.146 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".