Perceptions And Preparedness: A Study On Lgbt Patient Care Among Medical And Allied Healthcare Students And Practitioners In India Using LGBT-DOCSS

Introduction: LGBTQ+ individuals often have unique healthcare needs, but they also face significant barriers that make it harder for them to access the care and support they deserve.. They continue to face challenges when accessing healthcare, particularly in countries like India, where social stigma and lack of adequate training among healthcare providers contribute to unequal care. [1] There is a lack of comprehensive education on LGBTQ+ healthcare, and students’ understanding of these issues is not well-documented. This study explored the knowledge and attitudes toward LGBTQ+ healthcare among medical, allied health students, and practitioners in India. Methods: This study used an online self-report survey to collect information on participants' personal and academic backgrounds, as well as their experiences with LGBT-related education during their medical and allied health studies and clinical practice. The total scores from the LGBT-DOCSS, along with the individual scores for the three subscales—clinical preparedness, knowledge, and attitudes—were analysed and compared against international standards. Results: The sample comprised of 200 respondents, all of the respondents reported a lack of LGBT community-related courses during their studies and clinical practice. The total score on the LGBT-DOCSS was 4.291 ± 0.717 out of 7, indicating a relatively low level of clinical competence. The highest mean score was in the attitude subscale (4.842 ± 1.059), which was significantly higher than the scores for the knowledge subscale (4.323 ± 1.419) and the clinical preparedness subscale (3.722 ± 1.349). Men reported higher levels of knowledge and clinical preparedness, but also showed more negative attitudes compared to women. On comparison with the scores of other countries like Israel, USA and Canada, India was lagging behind significantly in LGBT healthcare training due to Attitude of the people which was significantly lower when compared to other countries leading to such a significant difference in study. Conclusion: The participants reported low levels of clinical competency, especially in self-reported knowledge and clinical preparedness, but generally had positive attitudes toward the LGBT community. This highlights a crucial need for LGBT-inclusive education in medical and allied healthcare programs in India. The low levels of preparedness among students and clinicians stress the importance of incorporating LGBT-focused training to ensure healthcare providers are better equipped to offer inclusive and culturally competent care. Future studies should assess the long-term impact of such training on patient outcomes and healthcare delivery.