https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0167-7335
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people often experience significant health disparities and poor health outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection in 2 distinct survey settings: (1) clinical research and (2) patient assistance programs.
Materials and methods
In this survey study, participants completed 1 of 2 separate, distinct, self-reported, optional, United States–based surveys: (1) an in-person survey at clinical research sites for a cough or cardiac study between December 2022 to December 2023 (sponsored by Genentech) or (2) a web-based patient assistance program survey from a patient assistance program between January 2023 to December 2023 (sponsored by the Genentech Patient Foundation).
Results
Of 33 clinical research survey participants, 100% of participants answered SOGI-related questions, leading to a non-response rate of 0%. Most (87.88%) participants identified as cisgender; 84.85% identified as heterosexual, 3.03% bisexual, 3.03% gay, 3.03% questioning, and 6.06% preferred not to answer.
Of 8499 patient assistance program survey participants, 99.54% answered gender identity questions (non-response rate of 0.46%) and 95.92% answered sexual orientation questions (non-response rate of 4.08%). Gender identities in the patient assistance program survey included 61.30% female, 34.22% male, 0.12% genderqueer, 0.06% transgender male, 0.14% none of the options, and 4.16% “Prefer not to answer.” Self-reported non-heterosexual orientations included bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, questioning, “Prefer not to answer,” and something else.
Citation: Brown I, Tran T, Funwie A, Patel S, Dawson K, McKenzie M (2025) Sexual orientation and gender identity data: An observational study assessing the feasibility of SOGI collection in clinical research and patient assistance programs. PLoS One 20(10): e0332805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332805
Editor: Kristina Hood, Virginia Commonwealth University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: October 29, 2024; Accepted: September 4, 2025; Published: October 22, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Brown et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Qualified researchers may request access to individual patient-level data through the clinical study data request platform (https://vivli.org/). Further details on Roche’s criteria for eligible studies are available at https://vivli.org/ourmember/roche/. For further details on Roche’s Global Policy on the Sharing of Clinical Information and how to request access to related clinical study documents, see https://www.roche.com/research_and_development/who_we_are_how_we_work/clinical_trials/our_commitment_to_data_sharing. For Genentech Patient Foundation, data may be available upon request at 888-941-3331.
Funding: This manuscript was funded by Genentech, Inc, and the Genentech Patient Foundation, which provided support in the form of salaries for some authors but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The following authors had competing interests at the time of this analysis: I. Brown, T. Tran, K. Dawson, and M. McKenzie are employees of Genentech, Inc, and shareholders of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. A. Funwie is an employee of Genentech, Inc. S. Patel is an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Global Health at the University of Washington. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS One policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people often experience significant health disparities, including lower life expectancy, increased incidence of disease, and higher rates of mental health conditions [1–5]. Poor health outcomes are often exacerbated by experiences of discrimination, stressful socioenvironmental conditions, and lack of healthcare access [6–8]. Yet, the extent of disparities in outcomes and access for SGM populations is unknown due to the lack of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) collection in census information, in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Programs [9], and in clinical research data.
Systematic collection of SOGI data in clinical research trials and patient assistance programs offers numerous potential benefits, including the assurance that the SGM community is included in healthcare/research settings as well as gaining a better understanding of how to improve on health inequalities. SOGI data increase awareness of diversity in patient inclusion in healthcare settings, how patients are treated, and their outcomes. Data sharing can allow for stronger patient-provider relationships and for appropriate targeted care or preventative services in a representative and inclusive environment [10]. If these data are not collected, professionals in healthcare and research settings are unable to measure who has access to their practices, which patients can gain access through patient assistance programs, or the generalizability of findings to SGM patient communities. Importantly, a request for optional reporting of SOGI data represents a form of inclusion: to be measured is to be counted, and to be counted is to be included.
Despite recommendations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [11], National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [12,13], National Science and Technology Council [14], and Society of General Internal Medicine [15], patient SOGI data are not currently being collected in most clinical research or patient assistance settings [16,17]. The overall aim of this real-world, US-based, observational study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of SOGI data collection in 2 distinct environments: (1) 2 clinical research study programs and (2) a nonprofit patient assistance organization.
Materials and methods
Site participation
This survey study involved 2 separate, distinct surveys (1 clinical research survey and 1 patient assistance program survey) and 3 sources of participant responses. No individual participated in both surveys. The 2 participating clinical studies were a phase 2a cough study (sponsored by Genentech, NCT05660850) and a phase 1 cardiac study (sponsored by Genentech, ISRCTN10520571). The patient assistance program web survey was conducted by the Genentech Patient Foundation, an independent nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that provides free Genentech medication to individuals who qualify based on insurance and financial criteria. The rationale for including 2 distinct surveys with differing respondent compositions was to examine potential variations in the acceptability of SOGI-related questions across diverse populations and settings.
Clinical research study survey, data collection, and participant eligibility
The clinical research study survey was developed by an internal working group with questions and terminology based on insights from clinical research site interviews and internal groups as well as information from the NIH PhenX Toolkit [18] and Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium global data standards (S1 File). Literature reviews and discussions with clinical research centers and organizations were conducted to address current practices and gaps in SOGI data collection. Survey questions provided to participants for the clinical research study pilot programs are in the S2 File.
Data were collected on US patients aged ≥18 years from December 2022 to December 2023. In addition to providing basic demographic data (i.e., age, sex, race), SOGI collection was optional and information was self-reported, mirroring the collection of data on race and ethnicity. Language on the collecting and recording of demographic, race and ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation information was added to clinical site protocols. Sites, institutional review boards, or patients could opt out of data collection if local policy did not allow for collection, if patients did not feel safe disclosing information in their local area, or for other undisclosed reasons. Privacy safeguards were similar to those for other sensitive information (e.g., race, ancestry), as outlined by the General Data Protection Regulation.
Participants at clinical research sites were provided one-time, drop-down survey questions in the presence of research study staff who could explain survey terms or answer questions. Participants chose 1 response to each SOGI-related question.
Patient assistance program survey, data collection, and participant eligibility
The Genentech Patient Foundation patient assistance program survey was developed using input from focus groups including patients, care partners, internal experts, and the general public using questions based on the race and ethnicity sections of the 2020 US census. Survey questions are in S3 File.
The patient assistance program survey was a web-based, one-time survey completed without the presence of a healthcare provider by participants receiving medications from the program. Any person in the US or US territories who applied to the patient assistance program using the online enrollment form could participate in the survey. Data were collected from January 2023 to December 2023. SOGI collection was optional and self-reported, mirroring the collection of race and ethnicity data; additional demographics, such as age, were not included as part of the survey. Privacy safeguards were similar to those for other sensitive information as outlined by the General Data Protection Regulation.
Ethical review
Clinical studies were approved by institutional review boards (phase 2a: Advarra; phase 1: WCG) and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2013. Administrative, physical, and technical safeguards were upheld to protect participant confidentiality. All survey participants provided written informed consent, which was obtained through an institutional review board–approved consent form at the clinical site and witnessed by the clinical staff. Clinical research sites included the recording of age, sex, and optional self-reported SOGI information in the informed consent form. Participants received no stipend. S4 File provides the protocol and informed consent language on optional SOGI data collection. There were no questions from the US Food and Drug Administration or institutional review board regarding SOGI data collection.
Participants in the patient assistance program survey were presented with consent language prior to the survey. The recording of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity data was included in the informed consent. Participants were notified that their involvement in the survey would not affect access to the foundation and were also provided a link to Genentech’s privacy policy. Once a participant provided electronic consent, they were allowed access to the survey.
Statistical analysis
Survey responses from the 2 clinical research study sites were collected in isolation from one another. Participant responses from the patient assistance program were aggregated nationally. Individual survey items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequency counts and percentages were described for ordinal and categorical variables. All analyses were conducted from November 2023 to March 2024.
Results
Clinical study surveys
A total of 33 participants completed the clinical research study surveys: 17 from the cough study and 16 from the cardiac study. All participants answered every question, indicating strong overall engagement.
A total of 57.58% of participants in both clinical studies reported their sex at birth as female (Fig 1A). All participants directly answered gender identity questions (Fig 1B); a total of 15 (88.23%) and 14 participants (87.50%) in the cough and cardiac studies, respectively, identified as cisgender. Two participants in each survey chose “Prefer not to answer” in the gender identity section. Among the clinical research survey participants, all participants directly answered questions on sexual orientation (Fig 1C). In the cough study, 15 participants (88.24%) identified as heterosexual and 1 (5.88%) as bisexual; 1 participant (5.88%) chose “Prefer not to answer.” In the cardiac study, 13 participants (81.25%) identified as heterosexual, 1 (6.25%) identified as gay, 1 (6.25%) identified as questioning, and 1 (6.25%) chose “Prefer not to answer.”
Racial and ethnic profiles of the clinical research survey participants are detailed in Table 1. A total of 27 participants (81.82%) were White, 5 (15.15%) were Black, and 1 (3.03%) did not report their race. Combined, 29 participants (87.88%) were not Hispanic or Latino, 3 (9.09%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 1 (3.03%) did not report their ethnicity. A total of 47.06% of participants in the cough study and 56.25% in the cardiac study were 65–74 years old.
Patient assistance program survey
Of the 21,754 individuals who were presented with the survey, 8499 (39.07%) responded to ≥1 question (i.e., participated in the survey) (Fig 2). Of the 8499, the majority (4656 [54.78%]) answered every question; 3343 participants (39.33%) chose to answer sex at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation questions but did not provide race or ethnicity information. A small proportion of participants only answered 1 section of the survey: 10 (0.12%) only answered what their sex was at birth questions, 38 (0.45%) only answered gender identity questions, 2 (0.02%) only answered sexual orientation questions, and 1 (0.01%) only answered race and ethnicity questions. The response rates suggest robust engagement across survey sections.
a Patients were included as responders if they answered at least 1 question in the survey.
A total of 5221 (61.97%) participants reported their sex at birth as female, 2899 (34.41%) male, 303 (3.60%) chose “Prefer not to answer” (Fig 3A), and 2 (0.02%) intersex. A total of 8460 participants (99.54%) responded to gender identity questions (Fig 3B); of these respondents, 8108 (95.86%) chose an answer other than “Prefer not to answer.” The majority of participants self-identified their gender as female (61.30%) or male (34.22%); 10 participants (0.12%) identified as genderqueer and 5 (0.06%) as transgender male. Twelve participants (0.14%) did not feel that any of the options described their gender identity, and 352 (4.14%) chose “Prefer not to answer.”
Of the 8499 survey respondents, 8152 (95.92%) answered sexual orientation questions (Fig 3C); of these respondents, 7129 (87.45%) chose an answer other than “Prefer not to answer.” The majority of participants identified as heterosexual (80.43%), and 57 participants (0.70%) identified as gay, lesbian, or something else. A total of 84 participants (1.03%) identified as bisexual, 29 (0.36%) as queer, and 9 (0.11%) as questioning; 1023 participants (12.55%) chose “Prefer not to answer.”
Racial and ethnic profiles of the patient assistance program survey participants are detailed in Table 2. A total of 825 participants (17.25%) identified as being of Hispanic/Latinx/Spanish origin. Most participants identified as White (59.92%), 18.03% were Black/African American, 4.40% were Asian, 1.42% were Native American/Alaska Native, 0.29% were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 2.37% identified as other. A total of 437 participants (10.69%) chose “Prefer not to answer.” The 117 participants (2.86%) who identified as multiracial are further categorized in Table 2.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this study is among the first to look at participant response rates to questions on SOGI in both clinical research study and patient assistance program settings. A high proportion of participants were willing to disclose information on gender identity and sexual orientation in addition to race and ethnicity.
An interesting observation from our clinical research survey was that >60% of respondents were born before 1970. While older generations have a higher nonresponse rate to SOGI questions [19,20], the clinical research survey results suggest that more people aged >50 years are willing to disclose this information in the presence of a healthcare provider. Given the small sample size of the clinical research survey (n = 33), future studies with larger participant populations may offer greater insight into the potential influence of age in disclosing SOGI information. As data on participant age were not collected in the patient assistance program survey, more research on responsiveness between age brackets is needed to fully understand the willingness of participants to respond to these surveys.
An important goal of including SOGI questions in clinical research– and patient assistance–based surveys is to understand key health equity and disparity issues across the population. According to the Pew Research Center survey, approximately 7% of the US population self-identifies as lesbian, gay, or bisexual [21], and of those individuals born between 1997 and 2012, > 1 in 5 consider themselves to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or some other sexual orientation besides heterosexual [22]. Including participants with different SOGIs may help researchers understand the response to treatments and interventions for populations with different social drivers of health.
Comprehensive and population-level information about the incidences and outcomes of health conditions across patients with different gender identities and sexual orientations is limited due to the lack of SOGI data collection. For example, in oncology, the healthcare and research field must rely on relatively small studies on disparities in the incidence of cancer and outcomes of treatment in SGM people, which can lead to varied results. Evidence on the incidence or risk of breast cancer in transgender individuals compared with cisgender women is mixed, and it is not clear how or whether hormone therapy used in gender-affirming care contributes to the likelihood of developing cancer [23–26]. This ambiguity highlights the need for SOGI data collection to accurately estimate disease burden and outcomes in patients who may most benefit from treatment.
The ability of healthcare providers and patient assistance programs to address SGM patients’ needs and improve access to health care starts with creating an environment that is representative and inclusive of the SGM community. Studies have shown that people who are SGM are often underserved and that these populations might experience discrimination or microaggressions when seeking services from institutions or healthcare-related foundations [27,28]. As a result, SGM patients often use environmental cues to determine comfortability and acceptance, including questionnaires on SOGI [29,30]. A key takeaway from this study is that individuals are willing to self-identify as transgender. This is important as the difficulty of assessing representative and inclusive healthcare is especially prevalent among transgender individuals.
When surveyed, 19% of transgender people reported refusal of care, 28% reported harassment, and 50% reported having to teach their medical providers about care of transgender people while also facing harassment and discrimination [31]. Providing a space (e.g., demographics survey) for patients to voluntarily disclose SOGI-related information takes the onus off the patient to provide this information and works to ensure that all patients can receive the same level of compassionate and empathetic care. An important goal is for SGM individuals to feel safer and confident in fully using tools for healthcare access, including but not limited to patient assistance programs that can provide access for those with financial barriers. The inclusion of SOGI questions and allowing patients to voluntarily disclose their SOGI information may create a safer, more comfortable environment, and the identity knowledge gained by the provider will aid in giving patients the most appropriate care, which may ultimately lead to better health outcomes.
Currently, the majority of clinical trials and healthcare research do not account for distinctions between sex and gender [32]. In a study that evaluated over 128 major oncology clinical trials that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of treatments, none of the trials described the collection of sex and gender data, distinguished between sex and gender, or reported any information on the gender of participants, and over one-third had at least 1 inconsistency in the use of sex and gender terms [16]. These gaps are present in other therapy areas, including but not limited to COVID-19 [33], cardiovascular disease [15,34,35], aging/Alzheimer disease [36], and autoimmune disease [37].
Additionally, many providers and researchers are hesitant to implement SOGI questions in their practice. Common concerns include offending patients or leaving patients susceptible to discrimination [38,39]. Despite the unease of providers, only a small minority of patients who were previously presented with SOGI questions reported feeling distressed, and the majority understood the importance of data collection and were willing to participate [40–42].
Over 95% of participants in either survey answered questions on sexual orientation or gender identity, demonstrating proof of concept that participants are willing to answer SOGI questions in a variety of settings. This is consistent with previously reported data from clinical and real-world studies suggesting that people are comfortable disclosing their SOGI status [40–45].
The preliminary feasibility of collecting SOGI data in a clinical research setting has led to the subsequent addition of optional SOGI data collection language in Genentech’s research and early development protocol template and informed consent forms (S4 File). Efforts to expand into other protocol templates are underway. In order to expand into global studies, more work is needed to understand privacy, legal, and regulatory concerns and translations of SOGI terminology for countries outside of the US and languages other than English.
Although the clinical research sample size was 33 patients, the clinical research and patient assistance program surveys had an interesting difference in racial and ethnic diversity. The intersectionality of race and ethnicity and SOGI is an important facet of all aspects of the healthcare ecosystem; male and female sexual minorities of color have a higher prevalence of negative health behaviors, outcomes, and healthcare access and utilization [4]. The clinical research studies primarily included participants who were White and not Hispanic or Latino (consistent with other reports on the lack of representation in clinical trials [46,47]), whereas participant makeup in the patient assistance program survey was similar to US Census Bureau reports on race and Hispanic origin [48].
While previous studies have suggested that race and ethnicity are related to nonresponse rates for SOGI questions [49], both surveys recorded high response rates for SOGI-related questions. The results of our surveys suggest that individuals are willing to report their sexual and gender identities, regardless of race or ethnicity, and are consistent with results in previous publications [41]. One limitation of our study is that we did not correlate SOGI responses to diversity and do not know whether those who identified as sexual minorities also identified as racial or ethnic minorities. Continued research on the relationship between SOGI and racial information disclosure is warranted.
An interesting observation from the patient assistance program survey is that more participants were willing to disclose SOGI information than race and ethnicity. While federal regulations and the NIH require clinical research to report the race and ethnicity of participants [50–53], this requirement does not extend to patient assistance programs. The higher response rate for SOGI vs race and ethnicity questions observed in this study was unexpected, given the voluntary nature of the survey and the prevalence of race and ethnicity disclosure in the healthcare field, and may have been impacted by user experience of the digital survey. Additionally, the reporting of sex and/or gender is often a requirement on many intake forms, including primary care clinics, insurance enrollment, government and public services, or education institutions. The perceived ubiquity of these types of questions may have influenced large numbers of respondents to voluntarily answer gender identity questions. These results support the importance of giving people the opportunity to self-identify and their willingness to do so in different settings.
In addition to healthcare benefits, the collection of optional self-reported SOGI data is ethically important. Such methods respect the autonomy of patients by allowing them to make the final decision on what information they choose to share and empower them to speak about their identity. Equal access to health care is a form of distributive justice. All individuals should have access to the same level of healthcare services and resources, regardless of their identity. Collecting SOGI data may protect individuals from discrimination through inclusion.
Limitations
Our study has several limitations. The clinical research surveys were conducted in small sample sizes; a current goal is to continue adding SOGI questions to more clinical research studies to not only enhance the dataset but also explore different trials outside of cardiac and cough studies. All surveys were only conducted in the United States and may not reflect global feasibility or results.
The clinical research study surveys and patient assistance program surveys were conducted with 2 unique user experiences, which may have impacted the understanding and willingness of the information participants chose to disclose. The clinical research survey was provided in person in a clinical setting; however, it cannot be assumed that patients asked research staff for help understanding information (e.g., the use of cisgender) while completing the survey. The use of wording in the surveys is important; terms such as intersex, cisgender, or transgender may not be known to the survey participants and may have affected a participant’s decision to provide information. As additional data are obtained, the SOGI questions will evolve to ensure they are understandable, inclusive, and accessible to as many people as possible.
The patient assistance program survey was only presented to respondents who digitally enrolled in the program, omitting patients who enrolled using fax or mail and may have limited access to digital tools. This may have introduced sampling bias due to not including patients without technology access. Age demographics were not collected in the patient assistance program survey but may be a consideration for subsequent initiatives in order to provide readers with greater contextual representation of survey participants.
Differences in demographic factors, settings, and survey composition may have influenced respondents’ willingness to participate and/or the nature of their responses. Recognizing these influences is important for informing future survey designs and ensuring that SOGI data collection efforts are both inclusive and appropriately tailored to diverse respondent groups.
Both surveys included grouped identity categories such as “Prefer not to answer,” “something else,” or “none of the above.” While this approach can support data simplification or protect respondent anonymity, it may obscure meaningful distinctions among SGM participants not adequately captured by binary or predefined options. Future survey designs should explore more nuanced and inclusive approaches to identity categorization.
Intersecting identities, such as age, race, socioeconomic status, and disability, can play a large role in shaping respondents’ comfort and feasibility when disclosing SOGI-related information, and these factors may influence individuals’ willingness to participate. Recognizing these dynamics is vital for interpreting response patterns and ensuring inclusive data collection. This is important for both clinical trials, which are regulated by their inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in real-world populations, which can provide better insights on which populations are the most comfortable disclosing SOGI data. Future research should prioritize intersectional approaches that explore how overlapping identities shape experience with SOGI data collection, including engaging diverse communities in survey design and developing adaptive methodologies.
Conclusions
These data reflect that patients in clinical research and patient assistance program settings are willing to self-disclose SOGI information. Adding SOGI questions to demographic forms can help discover gaps in access and increase awareness of medical needs to help guide research campaigns and equitable access to patient assistance programs and clinical research studies. To build on this foundational survey, further adoption is needed by clinical research, patient assistance programs, and throughout the healthcare ecosystem.
Supporting information
S1 File. Preferred terminology for survey questions.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332805.s001
(DOCX)
S2 File. Optional SOGI questionnaire for clinical research survey.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332805.s002
(DOCX)
S4 File. Optional SOGI data collection language added to Genentech research and early development template protocol and informed consent forms.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332805.s004
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the participants in this study. We also thank Joshua Galanter, Lauren Davis, Brian Maloney, Paul Wilds, Haifa Algabri, Catherine Abagado, Tatiana Beres, Quita Highsmith, Mindy Sivasubramanian, Mira Blendstrup, Heavenly Swendsen, Nikita Devdhar, and Eric Lam for their contributions to the survey and consulting on the pilot studies. Jan Bayabo and Keith Ngan provided analytics for the Genentech Patient Program data. Tatiana Dominguez, Rebecca Monroe, and Angelica Wilkinson contributed to the development and launch of the patient assistance program survey. Medical writing support was provided by Samantha O’Dwyer, PhD, of Nucleus Global in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines.
References
- 1. Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Kim H-J, Barkan SE, Muraco A, Hoy-Ellis CP. Health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults: results from a population-based study. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(10):1802–9. pmid:23763391
- 2. Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Kim HJ, Shui C, Bryan AEB. Chronic health conditions and key health indicators among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older US adults, 2013-2014. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(8):1332–8.
- 3. Gonzales G, Zinone R. Cancer diagnoses among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: results from the 2013-2016 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(9):845–54. pmid:30043193
- 4. Trinh M-H, Agénor M, Austin SB, Jackson CL. Health and healthcare disparities among U.S. women and men at the intersection of sexual orientation and race/ethnicity: a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):964. pmid:29258470
- 5.
Olsen K. AACR conference examines cancer disparities in the LGBTQ population. American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Virtual. Available from: https://www.aacr.org/blog/2021/01/26/aacr-conference-examines-cancer-disparities-in-the-lgbtq-population/
- 6. Maiolatesi AJ, Satyanarayana S, Bränström R, Pachankis JE. Development and validation of two abbreviated intraminority gay community stress scales. Assessment. 2023;30(1):84–101. pmid:34496672
- 7. Figueroa WS, Zoccola PM. Sources of discrimination and their associations with health in sexual minority sdults. J Homosex. 2016;63(6):743–63. pmid:26513583
- 8. Hsieh N, Shuster SM. Health and health care of sexual and gender minorities. J Health Soc Behav. 2021;62(3):318–33. pmid:34528481
- 9.
National Cancer Institute. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. http://seer.cancer.gov/
- 10. McGarrity LA, Huebner DM. Is being out about sexual orientation uniformly healthy? The moderating role of socioeconomic status in a prospective study of gay and bisexual men. Ann Behav Med. 2014;47(1):28–38. pmid:24307473
- 11.
National Institutes of Health. Notice of special interest: adiministrative supplements for research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations (admin supp clinical trial optional). 2019. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-032.html
- 12.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine, Committee on Population. Understanding the well-Being of LGBTQI+ populations. The National Academies Press; 2020.
- 13.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2022.
- 14.
National Science and Technology Council; Subcommittee on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Variations in Sex Chatacteristics (SOGI) Data. Federal evidence agenda on LGBTQI+ equity. January 2023. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Federal-Evidence-Agenda-on-LGBTQI-Equity.pdf
- 15.
Streed CG, Ben-Arieh A, Patel S, Godwin SG, McNair L. Ensuring equitable research participation — explicit inclusion of sexual and gender minority populations. 2022. https://www.sgim.org/article/ensuring-equitable-research-participation-explicit-inclusion-of-sexual-and-gender-minority-populations/
- 16. Hall M, Krishnanandan VA, Cheung MC, Coburn NG, Haas B, Chan KKW, et al. An evaluation of sex- and gender-based analyses in oncology clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(8):1186–91. pmid:35477781
- 17. Soule L, Melissa F, Barron S, Kuhn N, Brown B. Results of a needs assessment: use of sexual orientation and gender identity data in health systems in Maine. Journal of Main Medical Center. 2024;6(1):3.
- 18. Hamilton CM, Strader LC, Pratt JG, Maiese D, Hendershot T, Kwok RK, et al. The PhenX Toolkit: get the most from your measures. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(3):253–60. pmid:21749974
- 19. Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Kim H-J. The science of conducting research with LGBT older adults- an introduction to aging with pride: National Health, Aging, and Sexuality/Gender Study (NHAS). Gerontologist. 2017;57(suppl 1):S1–14. pmid:28087791
- 20. Valenti KG, Lewis C, Giano Z, Rieck J, Lee R. Sexual orientation and gender identity collection of older adults in the UCHealth electronic health record: assessing the first three years of implementation. Clin Gerontol. 2024:1–13.
- 21.
Brown A. 5 key findings about LGBTQ+ Americans. 2023. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/23/5-key-findings-aboutlgbtq-americans/
- 22.
Jones JM. LGBTQ+ Identification in U.S. now at 7.6%. March 13, 2024. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx
- 23. de Blok CJM, Wiepjes CM, Nota NM, van Engelen K, Adank MA, Dreijerink KMA, et al. Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands. BMJ. 2019;365:l1652. pmid:31088823
- 24. McFarlane T, Zajac JD, Cheung AS. Gender-affirming hormone therapy and the risk of sex hormone-dependent tumours in transgender individuals-A systematic review. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2018;89(6):700–11. pmid:30107028
- 25. Leone AG, Trapani D, Schabath MB, Safer JD, Scout NFN, Lambertini M, et al. Cancer in transgender and gender-diverse persons: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(4):556–63. pmid:36757703
- 26. Berliere M, Coche M, Lacroix C, Riggi J, Coyette M, Coulie J, et al. Effects of hormones on breast development and breast cancer risk in transgender women. Cancers (Basel). 2022;15(1):245. pmid:36612241
- 27.
National Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Discrimination in America: Experiences and view of LGBTQ Americans. Washington, DC: 2017.
- 28.
Dawson L, Long M, Frederiksen B. LGBT people’s health status and access to care. 2023. https://www.kff.org/report-section/lgbt-peoples-health-status-and-access-to-care-issue-brief/
- 29. Casanova-Perez R, Apodaca C, Bascom E, Mohanraj D, Lane C, Vidyarthi D, et al. Broken down by bias: healthcare biases experienced by BIPOC and LGBTQ+ patients. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2022;2021:275–84. pmid:35308990
- 30. Suen LW, Lunn MR, Sevelius JM, Flentje A, Capriotti MR, Lubensky ME, et al. Do ask, tell, and show: contextual factors affecting sexual orientation and gender identity disclosure for sexual and gender minority people. LGBT Health. 2022;9(2):73–80. pmid:35073205
- 31.
Grant JM, Mottett LA, Tanis J. Injustice at every turn: a report of the national transgender discrimination survey. National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 2011. https://www.thetaskforce.org/app/uploads/2019/07/ntds_full.pdf
- 32. Burton A, Mohan S, Puplampu-Dove Y, Tse T. Characterizing gender eligibility descriptions for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA. 2023;330(20):2019–21. pmid:37948067
- 33. Brady E, Nielsen MW, Andersen JP, Oertelt-Prigione S. Lack of consideration of sex and gender in COVID-19 clinical studies. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4015. pmid:34230477
- 34. Deb B, Porter K, van Cleeff A, Reardon LC, Cook S. Emphasizing sexual orientation and gender identity data capture for improved cardiovascular care of the LGBTQ+ population. JAMA Cardiol. 2024;9(3):295–302. pmid:38265768
- 35. Caceres BA, Streed CG Jr, Corliss HL, Lloyd-Jones DM, Matthews PA, Mukherjee M, et al. Assessing and addressing cardiovascular health in LGBTQ adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;142(19):e321–32. pmid:33028085
- 36. Stites SD, Cao H, Harkins K, Flatt JD. Measuring sex and gender in aging and alzheimer’s research: results of a national survey. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2022;77(6):1005–16. pmid:34865028
- 37. Klein SL, Morgan R. The impact of sex and gender on immunotherapy outcomes. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11(1):24. pmid:32366281
- 38. Haider AH, Schneider EB, Kodadek LM, Adler RR, Ranjit A, Torain M, et al. Emergency department query for patient-centered approaches to sexual orientation and gender identity: The EQUALITY Study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):819–28. pmid:28437523
- 39. Kamen CS, Pratt-Chapman ML, Meersman SC, Quinn GP, Schabath MB, Maingi S, et al. Sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in oncology practice: findings of an ASCO survey. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18(8):e1297–305. pmid:35605183
- 40. Rullo JE, Foxen JL, Griffin JM, Geske JR, Gonzalez CA, Faubion SS, et al. Patient acceptance of sexual orientation and gender identity questions on intake forms in outpatient clinics: a pragmatic randomized multisite trial. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(5):3790–808. pmid:29522236
- 41. Cahill S, Singal R, Grasso C, King D, Mayer K, Baker K, et al. 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. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107104. pmid:25198577
- 42. Doucette C, Milano MT, Kamen C. Patient perceptions of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in an outpatient radiation oncology setting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023;116(1):68–78. pmid:36549346
- 43. Alexander K, Walters CB, Banerjee SC. Oncology patients’ preferences regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) disclosure and room sharing. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(5):1041–8. pmid:31862127
- 44. Noel JK, Lutz TM. Measuring sex, gender, and sexual orientation in national disease surveillance systems: a pilot study. J Sex Res. 2020;57(8):987–96. pmid:32250166
- 45. Pickett AC, Valdez D, Barry AE. Measurement implications associated with refinement of sexual and gender identity survey items: a case study of the National College Health Assessment. J Am Coll Health. 2020;68(7):720–6. pmid:30958762
- 46. Turner BE, Steinberg JR, Weeks BT, Rodriguez F, Cullen MR. Race/ethnicity reporting and representation in US clinical trials: a cohort study. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;11:100252. pmid:35875251
- 47. Ma MA, Gutiérrez DE, Frausto JM, Al-Delaimy WK. Minority representation in clinical trials in the United States: trends over the past 25 years. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(1):264–6. pmid:33413830
- 48.
US Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222
- 49. O’Brien RP, Blosnich JR. Refusal rates to sexual orientation and gender identity items in the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2014-2019. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(3):443–52.
- 50.
National Institute of Health. S.1 - National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 Subtitle B-Clinical Research Equity Regarding Women and Minorities Part I-Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research Sec. 131. Requirement of Inclusion in Research. National Institute of Health. 1997. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/NIH-Revitalization-Act-1993.pdf
- 51.
National Institutes of Health; Grants & Funding. Inclusion of women and minorities as participants in research involving human subjects. September 20, 2024. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities.htm
- 52.
Department of Health and Human Services, Trials NIoHC, Register RaRISFRF. 2016;81(183):64982–5157.
- 53.
Federal Register. Office of Management and Budget. Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Vol 62, No 210. 58782-58790. October 30, 1997.