Review of UK and Ireland Surveys of Health Professional Educators on Teaching of Sexual- and Gender-Minority Health
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this interesting read, I think that this will be a valuable contribution to the field.
The main research question being addressed in this research is, what training in LGBT healthcare needs is provided to healthcare professional?
Whilst the topic is not novel, it does continue to add to the raft of literature on LGBT health care matters, in this context it helps draw light to the lack of training that healthcare professionals have. The article then draws attention that the lack of training then leads to poor experiences and health outcomes for LGBT patients. This article helps to provide a sector overview of surveying regarding LGBT health training, which there is currently a lack of other published materials.
However, I suggest a few minor tweaks:
- Rather than 'complained' I'd use a more neutral term such as 'highlighted'
- How was bias in survey data addressed/accounted for?
- Were there any consideration around the different constructions of surveys/data sources to be able to make claims across the data?
- There is mention of 5% of the population as LGBT, however, is this reflected in the population accessing health services? Are LGBT people accessing more services? Also, what are the implications for the future, in the 2023 census 12% of the 16-25 population identified as LGBT?
To make the article more robust, please consider the questions that I have posed and incorporate responses to these into the article. In particular, how bias was avoided in the methods and overall methodological approach.
The arguments and conclusion are clear and lead to clear summaries backed by the data. However, I would like there to be consideration of the implications for the future if training does not improve.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this article; it has a lot to say. I think it is a good start; however, there is a lot of work to be done in organizing and structuring the article to better understand the aims of your study. Simply noting early on what the aims of your research even are could bring some real cohesiveness to the survey. As stated below, clarifying your methodology and purpose will greatly improve your paper and make its aims and scope clearer.
Abstract: There is so much this study says it is doing, making the abstract very confusing. For example, you note that you looked at 15 surveys. Are these 15 surveys used in research? This is what I am assuming. Then you also do a curriculum review. This needs to be written more clearly and concisely, stating precisely what the study is doing. I think it could be helpful to add numbers listing out precisely what the study is doing 1. Examining 15 surveys used in the field, 2. Reviewing curriculum, etc.
Line 40: Saunders' reference should be listed first. References need to be listed in alphabetical order.
In-text citations are inconsistent throughout. Some have a comma between the author's name and the date, and others do not.
Line 57: Again, these references should be in alphabetical order. Please check throughout.
Line 64-70: I would reword this. Something like, "focusing on sexual health as the primary health concern for sexual minority people."
I also don't love the term "sexual minority people." To me, it is a bit dehumanizing. Also, you open the abstract talking about trans folks as well, so I would think that using LGBTQ+ as a term would be more inclusive.
In the introduction, the first set of sources you use is pretty old, then you move to more recent sources, and you conclude by discussing the 1999 survey. I would suggest writing the introduction in chronological order, which would provide a rationale for using older sources.
89: There is a typo around the word "where."
Methods: There needs to be a more systematic description of how you selected the surveys and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for including them. How does one find an unpublished survey, for example? I assume they are being used in practice, which is fine, and that much can be learned from them, but this needs to be stated explicitly in the methodology.
You also mention that you report of reviews of curriculum...how? What did your methods look like? Where did you get these reviews, and how did you decide what reviews you were going to use?
Line 94-106: If you state you are using a systematic review, you need to outline what you did, what search terms you used, etc.
Also, these networks are great, but each network you used needs to be listed, along with the specific ways you recruited, clearly outlined.
Line 104: How did this author assess eligibility?
Line 110: Again, how were these surveys found? The sampling methods are very confusing and unclear.
The chart is beneficial! I wonder if your methods, as stated in the chart below, will make this section easier to understand.
Line 170: It would be helpful if you would operationalize what you mean by "student surveys."
Line 256: The more I read, the more I think you have two completely separate studies here. The surveys you are analyzing are essential, as is the curriculum evaluation, but these are separate projects that need to be written in individual papers.
Results: I don't know that you can make these broad statements from reviewing just 15 surveys and then dividing those by fields. Make clear that in your search, you have determined this, but the results of your study are not at all generalizable.
Line 398: Homosexuality itself is a clinical, pathologizing term and not preferred by most LGBTQ people.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached manuscript review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
