Scoping review reveals key gaps in provider training and legal safeguards for gender-diverse adults in end-of-life care, highlighting an urgent need for inclusive clinical guidelines.
Background Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience higher mortality rates and elevated incidence of serious illness compared to cisgender populations. Despite these disparities, discrimination and stigma continue to create barriers to high-quality hospice and palliative care. Aims This scoping review identified the unmet needs of gender-diverse adults receiving hospice and palliative care in the United States. Methods Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically searched seven databases between May and June 2025. Inclusion criteria required: English-language publications from US settings, exclusive focus on gender-diverse adults, and examination of unmet needs in serious illness, hospice, or palliative care contexts. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Results Five publications met eligibility criteria. A descriptive thematic analysis identified four categories of unmet needs: (1) competent healthcare professionals with gender-affirming training; (2) holistic, inclusive care delivery models; (3) family and chosen family engagement protocols; and (4) protective institutional policies and legal frameworks. Critical limitations include a small sample size; predominance of healthcare professional perspectives rather than transgender patient voices; reliance on descriptive and narrative-based approaches; and absence of intersectional analyses examining race, class, and disability. Conclusions This review exposes substantial under-resourcing of research on gender-diverse patients’ end-of-life needs. Urgent priorities include systematic competency training for hospice and palliative care professionals, development of evidence-based clinical guidelines, advocacy for protective legal frameworks, and most critically, conducting robust qualitative and quantitative research centering transgender patients’ lived experiences and priorities in serious illness care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Max et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: