This dataset contains information on the locations and types of services provided by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community health centers in the United States. Health services captured within the dataset include: General medical services; pharmacy services; STD/HIV services (i.e. prevention, testing, treatment, counseling, etc.); individual, group, couples, and family counseling; peer support groups; 12-step programs; psychiatric services; anti-violence programming; and wellness programs and services (e.g. healthy eating, active living, cancer support, and other healthy living programs and support groups). Additional categories are included for organizations whose health service did not fit within the above categories. LGBT community centers that operated a physical health clinic were also identified, and were defined as clinical spaces operated by trained and licensed healthcare personnel. In all, 435 records were created during the search for LGBT community health centers. Of these 435 records, 129 (29.7%) did not meet the criteria to be defined as an LGBT community center. The remaining 306 LGBT community center service sites were operated by 219 independent LGBT community centers. Of those, 213 (69.6%) were identified as LGBT community health center service sites, which were operated by 147 independent LGBT community health centers. Data was collected between September – December, 2015 via online search.

The graph shows the changes in the impact factor of ^ and its corresponding percentile for the sake of comparison with the entire literature. Impact Factor is the most common scientometric index, which is defined by the number of citations of papers in two preceding years divided by the number of papers published in those years.

This report presents findings on the health and health-related behaviours of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) population in England. These are analysed by age, sex and ethnicity. The data are based on a representative sample of adults, aged 16 and over, who participated in the Health Survey for England from 2011–2018. 2% of adults surveyed in 2011-2018 identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) The Health Survey for England series was designed to monitor trends in the health, and health related behaviours, of adults and children in England.

LGBT* (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, others) individuals are known to experience poorer health and restricted access to healthcare compared to cisgender-heterosexual individuals. As General Practitioners (GPs) are a patient’s first point of contact with the healthcare system in Germany, this study examines GPs’ perspectives on LGBT healthcare. In this qualitative study, we conducted 19 semi-structured episodic interviews with GPs in urban and rural areas of Germany. The interviews were analysed using framework analysis. Our study shows LGBT* doctors feel more responsible for LGBT* healthcare than their cis-heterosexual colleagues. There is a perceived lack of knowledge and learning opportunities on LGBT* health needs for most interviewees. Cis-heterosexual GPs often feel unprepared to provide specific healthcare interventions to LGBT* patients and believe they lack the resources to improve their education on the topic. LGBT*-specific primary healthcare seems to be delivered by a small number of GP practices and primarily by LGBT* doctors. These LGBT* doctors recommend more widespread knowledge of LGBT* primary care and lives, to allow their colleagues to provide better care for these patients. There is a lack of knowledge on LGBT health needs and challenges among GPs in Germany, which needs to be addressed through structured training in medical school, and on a postgraduate level. This lack of knowledge leads to cis-heterosexual GPs feeling more insecure in providing care to LGBT* patients and LGBT* GPs providing a bigger share of LGBT* healthcare than their cis-heterosexual colleagues. LGBT* or queer GPs feel more responsible and equipped in providing care to LGBT* patients than cis-heterosexual GPs. Cis-heterosexual GPs often feel unprepared to provide specific healthcare interventions like gender affirming hormone therapy to LGBT* patients. While many cis-heterosexual GPs believed their number of LGBT* patients to be too low for it to be worth the time to educate themselves on caring for them, structured medical training is needed to allow all GPs to care for all members of their communities.

In 2023, only half of LGBT adults in the United States reported feeling very comfortable asking their doctor questions about their health or treatment during visits in the past three years, while this was the case for 67 percent of non-LGBT adults. Furthermore, around 12 percent of LGBT adults surveyed reported not being comfortable asking questions during their healthcare visits, as opposed to seven percent of non-LGBT adults.

As of 2023, around 38 percent of U.S. LGBTQ youth who wanted mental health care were unable to get it because they could not afford it. The statistic illustrates the share of U.S. LGBTQ youth who wanted mental health care but were unable to get it for select reasons as of 2023.

A survey from 2022 found that around 64 percent of LGBT adults in the United States described their mental health or emotional well-being as excellent, very good, or good. This statistic shows the percentage of adults in the United States who described their mental health or emotional well-being positively as of 2022, by LGBT identity.

List of Top Journals of LGBT Health sorted by citations.

List of Top Authors of LGBT Health sorted by citations.

List of Top Institutions of Journal of LGBT Health Research sorted by citations.

List of Top Schools of Journal of LGBT Health Research sorted by citations.

Dataset

This dataset was created by Abhigya verma

Contents

In 2021, around ** percent of all LGBTQ community centers that offer mental health services in the United States were offering peer-led, non-clinical support groups. Furthermore, ** percent of the LGBTQ community centers with mental health services in the U.S. were providing individual clinical counseling, whereas ** percent were providing group clinical therapy programs.

In 2023, ** percent of LGBT adults surveyed in the United States reported that they found it somewhat or very difficult to find mental health providers who could see them in a timely manner. Furthermore, *********************** of the LGBT adults surveyed had to some extent found it difficult to access a mental health provider who could understand and relate to their background and experiences.

List of Top Disciplines of Journal of LGBT Health Research sorted by citations.

Pre-intervention LGBT construct scores° by background among medical student respondents in Lausanne, Switzerland (n = 107).

Center types, definitions, and criteria for data collection.

Yearly citation counts for the publication titled "Sustaining Progress Toward LGBT Health Equity: A Time for Vigilance, Advocacy, and Scientific Inquiry".

In 2021, around ** percent of all LGBTQ community centers that offer physical health services in the United States were offering HIV or STI testing. Furthermore, ** percent of the LGBTQ community centers with physical health services in the U.S. were providing HIV or STI treatment, whereas ** percent were providing telehealth services.

IntroductionThe Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale (LGBT-DOCSS) is a validated self-assessment tool for health and mental health professionals who provide healthcare for sexual and gender minority patients. This study aimed to develop and validate a Japanese version of LGBT-DOCSS (LGBT-DOCSS-JP) and examine its psychometric properties.MethodsLGBT-DOCSS was translated into Japanese and cross-culturally validated using cognitive debriefing. We then evaluated the structural validity, convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability of LGBT-DOCSS-JP using an online survey.ResultsData were analyzed for 381 health and mental health professionals aged 20 years or older from three suburban medical institutions. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the original three-factor model did not fit well with LGBT-DOCSS-JP. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four new factors: Attitudinal Awareness, Basic Knowledge, Clinical Preparedness, and Clinical Training. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported using four established scales that measured attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, genderism and transphobia, authoritarianism and conventionalism, and social desirability. The internal consistency of LGBT-DOCSS-JP was supported by the Cronbach’s alpha values for the overall scale (0.84), and for each of its subscales (Attitudinal Awareness and Basic Knowledge both 0.87, Clinical Preparedness 0.78, and Clinical Training 0.97). The test–retest reliability for the overall LGBT-DOCSS-JP was supported by an intraclass correlation coefficient score of 0.86.ConclusionsLGBT-DOCSS-JP has the potential to serve as a valuable tool in the development and assessment of effective curricula for LGBT healthcare education, as well as a means to promote self-reflection among trainees and professionals.