Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 21;22(1):304.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03378-8.

Characteristics, barriers, and career intentions of a national cohort of LGBTQ+ MD/PhD and DO/PhD trainees

Affiliations

Characteristics, barriers, and career intentions of a national cohort of LGBTQ+ MD/PhD and DO/PhD trainees

Mollie C Marr et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, non-binary, intersex, and/or asexual (LGBTQ+) individuals continue to suffer worse health outcomes compared to the general population. Data on LGBTQ+ individuals in medicine, particularly in medical training, remain sparse. National studies of LGBTQ+ students in MD/PhD and DO/PhD training programs have not been reported.

Methods: Trainees pursuing MD, DO, MD/PhD, and DO/PhD degrees at 32 nationally representative institutions completed a 70-item survey about their future career and anticipated challenges using an online survey tool from September 2012 to December 2014. There were 4,433 respondents to the survey. Of those, 2,837 completed the gender identity questions and 2,849 completed the sexual orientation questions. Completion of these questions was required for inclusion. Survey results were analyzed to examine differences between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ medical and dual degree trainees.

Results: LGBTQ+ students were underrepresented among MD/PhD and DO/PhD trainees (8.70%) compared to the US population, though their representation was higher than among MD and DO trainees (5.20%). LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees endorsed the greatest interest in pursuing careers involving academic medicine, with varying career focuses including research, clinical duties, education, and advocacy. LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees prioritized opportunities in patient care, work-life balance, and research as the most important factors for their career selection. Importantly, a higher percentage of LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees (15.50%) identified sexual harassment as a past barrier to career advancement compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers (8.27%). LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees were more likely to report having a mentor who advocated for them.

Conclusions: LGBTQ+ physician scientist trainees remain under-represented and under-studied. It is vital that medical institutions devote more time and resources towards identifying and addressing the unique needs of this group in training. Training programs should be aware of the current and prior challenges faced by their LGBTQ+ dual degree trainees, work to overcome the unique barriers they face, highlight the strengths and unique perspectives they bring, and foster their professional growth and goals during and beyond their training.

Keywords: DO/PhD; LGBTQ+; MD/PhD; Medical education; Physician-scientist.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rossman K, Salamanca P, Macapagal K. A qualitative study examining young adults’ experiences of disclosure and nondisclosure of LGBTQ identity to health care providers. J Homosex. 2017;64(10):1390–1410. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2017.1321379. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Martos AJ, Wilson PA, Gordon AR, Lightfoot M, Meyer IH. “Like finding a unicorn”: healthcare preferences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2018;208:126–133. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.020. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rutherford K, Mcintyre J, Daley A, Ross LE. Development of expertise in mental health service provision for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Med Educ. 2012;46(9):903–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04272.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gonzales G, Przedworski J, Henning-Smith C. Comparison of health and health risk factors between lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults and heterosexual adults in the United States: results from the national health interview survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1344–51. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3432. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Powell K, Terry R, Chen S. How LGBT+ scientists would like to be included and welcomed in STEM workplaces. Nature. 2020;586(7831):813–816. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02949-3. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources