A cross-sectional study examines healthcare professionals' attitudes and comfort with LGBTQIA+ care, suggesting a need for ongoing training.
Introduction The lack of familiarity with evidence-based terminologies and practices in LGBTQIA+ healthcare generates discomfort and conflicts in the doctor–patient relationship. This study aimed to describe attitudes, familiarity with LGBTQIA+ rights, and the ability to provide welcoming care among professionals trained in a university hospital. Methods A cross-sectional study among medical residents, preceptors, and faculty members of the Ribeirão Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo. Duplicate responses were excluded. Results A total of 123 responses were elegible. The median age was 29 years (IQR: 27–44); 93.5% were physicians, with a median of four years since graduation (IQR: 2–19). Most respondents were residents (62.6%), female (52.0%), White (82.9%), Christian (56.1%), and single (57.7%). Almost all reported feeling comfortable with LGBTQIA+ students (n = 122). Regarding terminology use, 81.3% felt confident using it; 89.4% stated they use the social name; and 78.1% reported no difficulties with pronouns. Additionally, 87.8% supported the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ topics in formal education. On the other hand, 44.7% reported discomfort with the use of gender-neutral language; 9.8% with admitting patients to wards according to their lived gender; and 12.2% with the use of restrooms according to gender identity. Nine participants (7.3%) believed that the presence of trans women or travestis in women’s restrooms increases the risk of violence against cisgender women. Furthermore, 22.8% believed that the media can influence the development of sexual orientation or gender identity. A minority believed that the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) should not provide gender-affirming treatments (4.9%) or reproductive technologies for same-sex couples (1.6%). Conclusion Despite predominantly positive attitudes, specific resistances highlight the importance of continuous training and institutional policies. Financing No conflict.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oliveira et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: