4.5 Review

Proportion of patients who disclose their sexual orientation to healthcare providers and its relationship to patient outcomes: A meta-analysis and review

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 101, 期 9, 页码 1549-1560

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.05.001

关键词

LGB health; Sexual orientation; Disclosure; Healthcare providers; Patient-centered care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patient-centered care emphasizes the need to form a therapeutic and trusting relationship between patients and providers in which patients feel comfortable disclosing health-relevant and personal information. It is still unknown how many patients disclose their sexual orientation to providers, under what circumstances and what it is related to in terms of outcomes. Method: The present meta-analysis and review sought to identify the overall proportion of sexual orientation disclosure to healthcare providers, facilitators and barriers of disclosure, patient populations less likely to disclose, and the relationship between disclosure and outcomes. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria yielding 38 independent proportions. Characteristics of patients, providers, location, and disclosure were extracted. Results: Sexual orientation disclosure proportions to healthcare providers ranged from .29 to .98. The random-effects pooled estimate was .63 (95% CI: .58, .68). Disclosure compared to nondisclosure was related to more positive direct and indirect health outcomes including higher satisfaction, more healthcare seeking and screenings and better self-reported health and psychological wellbeing. Conclusion: The overall proportion of disclosure to healthcare providers varied by patient, provider, location, and disclosure characteristics. Practice implications: These findings emphasize the need for future interventions directed at facilitating disclosure among populations identified as less likely to disclose. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据