| Title |
Electronic Health Records and Transgender Patients—Practical Recommendations for the Collection of Gender Identity Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-014-3148-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Madeline B. Deutsch, David Buchholz |
| Abstract |
Transgender (Trans, Trans*) persons may have a gender identity and a preferred name that differ from those assigned at birth, and/or those listed on their current legal identification (Gender ID, Birth-assigned Sex, Legal Sex). Transgender people who are referred to in a clinical setting using the wrong pronoun or name may suffer distress, ridicule or even assault by others in the waiting area, and may not return for further care. Furthermore, failure to accurately document (and therefore count) transgender identities has negative implications on quality improvement and research efforts, funding priorities and policy activities. The recent announcement that gender identity data may be included in Meaningful Use Stage 3 has accelerated the need for guidance for both vendors and local implementation teams on how to best record and store these data. A recent study demonstrated wide variation in current practices. This manuscript provides a description of identifiers associated with gender identity, and makes practical and evidence based recommendations for implementation and front-end functionality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 54% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 181 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 42 | 23% |
| Unknown | 41 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 24 | 13% |
| Psychology | 18 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 48 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,219,459
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#976
of 8,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,770
of 360,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#20
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.