Does Location of Practice or Religiosity Predict Negative Physician Attitudes or Beliefs Toward LGB+ Individuals?

The purpose of this study is to extend the Sabin et al's. (Am J Public Health 105(9):1831-1841, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302631) findings to examine the extent to which religiosity and/or geographic region is predictive of negative attitudes or beliefs toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and asexual (LGB+) individuals. Secondary data from the Sexuality Implicit Association Test were analyzed. Data included only participants from 2013 to 2015 who identified "Healthcare - Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners" as their occupation (n = 1376). The results of a factorial ANOVA revealed significant group differences accounting for 22.4% of the variance in attitudes toward LGB+ individuals. Religiosity was a significant factor in determining negative attitudes toward LGB+ individuals. However, the study was underpowered (5.8%) to detect an effect of geographic location in determining negative attitudes toward LGB+ individuals. It is important to validate a tool that can adequately measure the common assumptions associated with both religion and geographic region. Additionally, medical educators need to learn how to recognize and address negative attitudes among their students.

Intersections of Physician Autonomy, Religion, and Health Care When Working With LGBT+ Patients.

The purpose of this study is to explore the ways that some health care providers perceive the intersectionality of their autonomy, religious faith, and their medical practice, specifically when it comes to providing care for the LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual) community. Physicians (n = 25) and medical residents (n = 17) located in the southeast completed a qualitative survey regarding their views of working with LGBT+ patients. Five main themes resulted from the analysis: adequate education, communication, discrimination, duty versus physician autonomy, and religious exemption. In this analysis, we focus specifically on duty versus physician autonomy and religious exemption since the other themes have been addressed in literature. The physicians and medical residents in this sample were divided among groups on the right to refuse treatment. Although there was not a question specific to religion, participants discussed religion in their responses to whether they believe in the right to refuse treatment. This division supports the need to decrease the current gap in knowledge regarding how religious views can affect physician treatment of LGBT+ patients and research effective ways to bridge the gap between physician autonomy and the duty to provide treatment.