USPSTF Approach to Addressing Sex and Gender When Making Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services | Guidelines | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  US Preventive Services Task Force Approach to Improving Gender Inclusivity in Current and Future Topic Updates
US Preventive Services Task Force Approach to Improving Gender Inclusivity in Current and Future Topic Updates

Green shading indicates recommendations to which updated US Preventive Services Task Force methods for sex and gender have been applied. BRCA indicates breast cancer susceptibility gene.

aRecommendation abbreviated, some letter grades excluded, or both, to highlight use of sex and gender language.

bText from body of recommendation statement, not topline recommendation.

Figure 2.  USPSTF Approach to Improving Gender Inclusivity in Current and Future Topic Updates (Continued)
USPSTF Approach to Improving Gender Inclusivity in Current and Future Topic Updates (Continued)

Green shading indicates recommendations to which updated USPSTF methods for sex and gender have been applied.

aRecommendation abbreviated, some letter grades excluded, or both, to highlight use of sex and gender language.

1.
Meerwijk  EL, Sevelius  JM.  Transgender population size in the United States: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples.   Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303578 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Crissman  HP, Berger  MB, Graham  LF, Dalton  VK.  Transgender demographics: a household probability sample of US adults, 2014.   Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):213-215. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303571 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Edmiston  EK, Donald  CA, Sattler  AR, Peebles  JK, Ehrenfeld  JM, Eckstrand  KL.  Opportunities and gaps in primary care preventative health services for transgender patients: a systemic review.   Transgend Health. 2016;1(1):216-230. doi:10.1089/trgh.2016.0019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rosendale  N, Goldman  S, Ortiz  GM, Haber  LA.  Acute clinical care for transgender patients: a review.   JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1535-1543. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4179 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Tabaac  AR, Sutter  ME, Wall  CSJ, Baker  KE.  Gender identity disparities in cancer screening behaviors.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(3):385-393. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.11.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Whitlock  E, Wolff  T,  et al.  Developing recommendations for evidence-based clinical preventive services for diverse populations: methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force.   Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(8):565-571. doi:10.7326/M16-2656 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Petitti  DB, Teutsch  SM, Barton  MB, Sawaya  GF, Ockene  JK, DeWitt  T; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Update on the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence.   Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):199-205. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-3-200902030-00010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Krist  AH, Wolff  TA, Jonas  DE,  et al.  Update on the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: methods for understanding certainty and net benefit when making recommendations.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(1S1)(1 suppl 1):S11-S18. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.09.011PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Boehmer  U.  Twenty years of public health research: inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations.   Am J Public Health. 2002;92(7):1125-1130. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1125 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Barton  MB, Miller  T, Wolff  T,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the US Preventive Services Task Force.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(2):123-127. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-2-200707170-00171 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kurth  AE, Krist  AH, Borsky  AE,  et al.  US Preventive Services Task Force methods to communicate and disseminate recommendations for clinical preventive services.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(1 suppl 1):S81-S87. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Epling  JW, Borsky  AE, Gerteis  J.  Improvements to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(12):1143-1144. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11311 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Siu  AL; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279-296. doi:10.7326/M15-2886 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(22):2211-2218. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.18928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(12):1188-1194. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13069 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons to prevent preterm delivery: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;323(13):1286-1292. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2684 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-665. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.10987 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Medication use to reduce risk of breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(9):857-867. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11885 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Primary care interventions to support breastfeeding: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;316(16):1688-1693. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14697 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Davidson  KW, Barry  MJ, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(10):949-956. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.14081 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Siu  AL, Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).  Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;315(4):380-387. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18392PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(2):183-189. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.19438PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gestational diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(6):531-538. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.11922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(9):947-953. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0807PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(4):349-354. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9365PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;318(22):2224-2233. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.18261PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-2213. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6390 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(23):2326-2336. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6587PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Final recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(16):1678-1687. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14741PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Siu  AL; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for iron deficiency anemia and iron supplementation in pregnant women to improve maternal health and birth outcomes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):529-536. doi:10.7326/M15-1707PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for elevated blood lead levels in children and pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(15):1502-1509. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3326PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(24):2521-2531. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7498PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for ovarian cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(6):588-594. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21926PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for preeclampsia: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(16):1661-1667. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3439PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia and related morbidity and mortality: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(12):1186-1191.Google ScholarCrossref
37.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901-1913. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3710 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Screening for Rh (D) incompatibility: recommendation statement. US Preventive Services Task Force. Published February 15, 2004. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/final-evidence-review86/rh-d-incompatibility-screening
39.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-681. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.13095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).  Screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;315(21):2321-2327. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5824PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for testicular cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(7):483-486. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-7-201104050-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;325(3):265-279. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.25019PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(15):1592-1599. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3185PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Our Partners. US Preventive Services Task Force. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/our-partners
45.
National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office. Methods and measurement in sexual & gender minority health research. National Institutes of Health. Reviewed January 27, 2021. Accessed February 2021. https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/sgmro/measurement
46.
Transgender health resources. American Academy of Family Physicians. Accessed February 2021. https://www.aafp.org/membership/welcome-center/involve/connect/constituencies-forums/lgbt/transgender.html
47.
Rafferty  J; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Committee on Adolescence; Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health and Wellness.  Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents.   Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):e20182162. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-2162 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Section on LGBT Health and Wellness (SOLGBTHW) website. American Academy of Pediatrics. Accessed February 2021. https://www.aap.org/en/community/aap-sections/lgbt-health-and-wellness/
49.
Landry  J, Kensler  P.  Providing culturally sensitive care to women who are in the sexual minority or are gender nonconforming.   Nurs Womens Health. 2019;23(2):163-171. doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2019.01.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Daniel  H, Butkus  R; Health and Public Policy Committee of American College of Physicians.  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health disparities: executive summary of a policy position paper from the American College of Physicians.   Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(2):135-137. doi:10.7326/M14-2482 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
 Committee Opinion No. 512: health care for transgender individuals.   Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1454-1458. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823ed1c1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Advocating for the LGBTQ community. American Medical Association. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/advocating-lgbtq-community
53.
Topic: LGBT. American Osteopathic Association. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://thedo.osteopathic.org/tag/lgbt/
54.
American Psychological Association.  Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people.   Am Psychol. 2015;70(9):832-864. doi:10.1037/a0039906 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
 Health risks and needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents position statement.   J Pediatr Health Care. 2011;25(6):A9-A10. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.07.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
PCORI’s LGBT health portfolio works to address major disparities. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Published May 11, 2018. Accessed February 2021. https://www.pcori.org/blog/pcoris-lgbt-health-portfolio-works-address-major-disparities
57.
Deutsch  MB, Feldman  JL.  Updated recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care.   Am Fam Physician. 2013;87(2):89-93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
UCSF Transgender Care Department of Family and Community Medicine. Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People. 2nd ed. University of California San Francisco. Published June 17, 2016. Accessed February 2021. https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
59.
Coleman  EA, Bockting  W, Botzer  M,  et al.  Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. 7th ed. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Published 2012. Accessed September 1, 2021. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.700873
60.
Guirguis-Blake  JM, Beil  TL, Senger  CA, Coppola  EL.  Primary care screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2019;322(22):2219-2238. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Nelson  HD, Pappas  M, Cantor  A, Haney  E, Holmes  R.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2019;322(7):666-685. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.8430 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Doubeni  CA, Simon  M, Krist  AH.  Addressing systemic racism through clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2021;325(7):627-628. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.26188 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Views 23,462
Citations 0
US Preventive Services Task Force
October 25, 2021

USPSTF Approach to Addressing Sex and Gender When Making Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
  • 2Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
  • 3Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement (CEPI), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland
  • 4Informed Medical Decisions Program, Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
  • 5Kaiser Permanente, Northwest, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, Oregon
  • 6Stanford Health Policy, Department of Medicine and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • 7Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health, New York, New York
  • 8Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • 9Departments of Medicine and Health Policy and Management, University of California at Los Angeles
JAMA. 2021;326(19):1953-1961. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.15731
Abstract

Clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are based on transparent, systematic, and rigorous methods that consider the certainty of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit. These guidelines aim to address the needs of diverse populations. Biological sex and gender identity are sources of diversity that are not often considered in studies of clinical preventive services that inform the recommendations, resulting in challenges when evaluating the evidence and communicating recommendations for persons in specific gender identification categories (man/woman/gender nonbinary/gender nonconforming/transgender). To advance its methods, the USPSTF reviewed its past recommendations that included the use of sex and gender terms, reviewed the approaches of other guideline-making bodies, and pilot tested strategies to address sex and gender diversity. Based on the findings, the USPSTF intends to use an inclusive approach to identify issues related to sex and gender at the start of the guideline development process; assess the applicability, variability, and quality of evidence as a function of sex and gender; ensure clarity in the use of language regarding sex and gender; and identify evidence gaps related to sex and gender. Evidence reviews will identify the limitations of applying findings to diverse groups from underlying studies that used unclear terminology regarding sex and gender. The USPSTF will use gender-neutral language when appropriate to communicate that recommendations are inclusive of people of any gender and will clearly state when recommendations apply to individuals with specific anatomy associated with biological sex (male/female) or to specific categories of gender identity. The USPSTF recognizes limited evidence to inform the preventive care of populations based on gender identity.

Introduction

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes evidence-based recommendations on clinical preventive services, including screening, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications. Frequently, USPSTF recommendations are sex-specific, most commonly based on the biological basis of the preventive service. For example, cervical cancer screening recommendations apply to females (individuals born with a cervix), and prostate cancer screening recommendations apply to males (individuals born with a prostate). However, many people have gender identities that differ from their sex assigned at birth. Transgender people, who were assigned male sex at birth but identify as women, or who were assigned female sex at birth but identify as men, are examples of such individuals, but there are also people with gender nonconforming or nonbinary identities who do not identify as either a man or a woman. A synthesis of data from 12 surveys involving 1 232 667 participants suggested that in the US, about 1 in 250 individuals, or about 1 million people, self-identify as transgender or gender nonconforming.1 Moreover, in the anonymous Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey conducted in 2014 among 151 456 US adults, 0.53% of respondents self-identified as transgender. Among these individuals, about 53% self-identified as male-to-female transgender, 31% as female-to-male transgender, and 17% self-identified as gender nonconforming.2

Although data are limited,3 transgender, gender nonconforming, and gender nonbinary people report barriers to health care, including negative experiences in health care settings, and report avoiding health care because of concern about being mistreated.4 Moreover, disparities in preventive care, such as cancer screening, have been demonstrated for transgender and gender-nonconforming people.5

Therefore, the USPSTF recognizes that the language used in sex-specific recommendations (specifically related to the sex assigned to a person at birth) needs to be clear and consistent so clinicians and patients can effectively and respectfully apply these recommendations in practice. The purpose of this report is to describe the methods that the USPSTF used to identify recommendations that have sex or gender components and clarify the populations for which the recommendations should apply and also to present a proposed approach to making recommendations that are respectful of gender diversity and that identify when biological sex assigned at birth has limitations as a factor for whom should receive recommended services. This report builds on previous USPSTF methods for developing evidence-based recommendations for diverse populations.6

Definitions

It is critical to be able to use terminology with clear definitions. The word sex describes particular biological attributes commonly associated with specific chromosomes, the effect of particular endogenous hormones, and reproductive anatomy. Although individuals can change their hormonal levels and anatomy through medical or surgical approaches, sex is meant to identify those individuals who would likely have been assigned a sex at birth of either female, male, or intersex. Sex is commonly dichotomized into female or male, but this dichotomy is not inclusive of individuals who are intersex—ie, those who have reproductive anatomy that is inconsistent with usual definitions of female or male. For example, an individual with external female genitalia but internal male reproductive organs would be intersex but may by identified by the individual or clinician as male, female, or intersex.

The USPSTF uses gender terms to refer to identities that reflect how individuals generally perceive themselves with regard to social or cultural norms as men, women, gender nonbinary, or gender nonconforming. Gender identity is not specifically confined to a binary categorization and can exist as a continuum; additionally, it can change over time. How individuals identify themselves can differ from how others perceive them based on traditional stereotypes of gender presentation. Assumptions about sex assigned at birth or gender may not be aligned with a person's biology or personal identity. The use of cis- and trans- prefixes are sometimes used to indicate whether an individual has a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex assigned at birth (cisgender) or does not (transgender).

Methods
Overview

To consider incorporating meaningful sex and gender terminology into its recommendations, the USPSTF created an internal workgroup of USPSTF members, evidence-based practice center (EPC) researchers, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality staff supporting the USPSTF program. The workgroup reviewed all USPSTF recommendations published by September 2021 (from September 7, 2015, to September 16, 2021) and identified all USPSTF recommendations with sex- and gender-specific language, performed an environmental scan of how other guideline-making bodies approach the use of the terms describing sex and gender, interviewed experts and leaders in the care of transgender persons, and pilot tested an approach on multiple recommendations to develop a policy to better address sex and gender. Findings from reviews and the cataloging were presented for discussion to the workgroup and the topic experts. The workgroup convened between September 2018 and March 2021 and may continue to meet periodically to further advance its methods around sex and gender.

General USPSTF Methods

The USPSTF makes recommendations for specific populations as determined by the evidence, and it pays particular attention to groups that may be underrepresented, underserved, or the target of racism or discrimination. When developing recommendations for specific populations, the USPSTF has 3 general goals. First, USPSTF recommendations must be consistent with the evidence. When the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms, the USPSTF does not use professional opinion. Instead, the USPSTF either issues an “I” or insufficient evidence statement or does not issue a formal statement, but in both cases makes a call for more research.7

Second, the USPSTF strives to be inclusive with recommendations. Clinicians need to know how the evidence about clinical preventive services applies to different groups of people. However, no USPSTF recommendation can address all distinct populations because there is inadequate evidence on the benefits and harms of preventive interventions explicitly addressing every population. When evidence is limited, the USPSTF decides whether evidence from studies in an unselected, general population is applicable to or can be extrapolated to specific populations.8 Applying the evidence in this way creates some level of uncertainty. The issue of limited evidence is amplified in transgender, gender nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, and intersex populations, who are not routinely identified or well-represented in studies.9

Third, the USPSTF must ensure recommendations are clear so that they are understood and implemented appropriately.10-12 The current language in many USPSTF recommendations lacks clarity and uses sex and gender terms inconsistently and interchangeably. For example, the USPSTF recommendation statement for breast cancer screening states that it “applies to…women aged 40 years or older.”13 However, it is unclear how or whether it applies to transgender, gender nonbinary, or gender nonconforming persons assigned female sex at birth or intersex individuals with breasts.

Catalog of Current USPSTF Recommendations

To catalog USPSTF recommendations, during March of 2021 workgroup members (n = 24) reviewed the current USPSTF recommendations to identify those that included a sex or gender term. The terms used and their intentions were cataloged. Of the 84 topics for which the USPSTF had made recommendations at the time of cataloging, 32 made sex- or gender-specific reference in the recommendation (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The USPSTF most often used gender terms, referring to men or women, instead of the sex terminology of male and female. However, most recommendations were based on sex differences and not gender identity or were for pregnant persons. No recommendation found sufficient evidence to make a specific recommendation for transgender, gender nonbinary, or gender nonconforming populations. One recommendation identified individuals who were not cisgender as a risk factor (preexposure prophylaxis for HIV),28 2 recommendations called for more evidence in transgender and gender nonbinary persons (preexposure prophylaxis for HIV and behavioral counseling to prevent sexually transmitted infections),28,39 and 1 recommendation stated that there were no screening data for transgender and gender nonbinary persons.20

Environmental Scan

Workgroup members reviewed publicly available guidance and methods documents from other national and international guideline bodies to identify (1) approaches to making guidelines based on sex and gender and (2) specific guidelines for transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. This effort was supplemented with a nonsystematic literature search (August 13, 2013, to August 12, 2018) and interviews with 23 members of the USPSTF partner organizations in an effort to ensure that the workgroup did not miss any approaches or guidelines.44

No publicly available documents or statements were identified at that time describing how other guideline bodies handle sex and gender or transgender populations when making recommendations. However, the National Institutes of Health has a website dedicated to the Methods and Measurement in Sexual & Gender Minority Health Research.45 Many professional groups identify LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) persons as a specific population and have policies or guidelines reflecting support, the role of the practitioner, and education on the various terms and definitions.46-56 Several guidelines outlined general medical and prevention approaches to the clinical care of transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming persons.57-59 Many medical professional societies also have policies regarding the use of inclusive language on health care forms, demographic questionnaires, handouts, and paperwork.

Pilot Testing

Over a series of 6 meetings, the workgroup considered revisions to the USPSTF processes and methods and defined guiding principles to strengthen sex and gender inclusivity when communicating recommendation statements. The EPC and USPSTF members were asked to apply preliminary changes throughout the process of updating 2 recommendations—screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and risk assessment and genetic counseling for BRCA-related cancers.14,17 Additionally, the EPCs and USPSTF members have prospectively applied the revised approach to subsequent topics to guide further insight and adaptation.

To advance its methods, the USPSTF pilot tested (1) prospectively and explicitly determining whether the preventive service was expected to have a biological (sex) or identity (gender) basis, (2) conducting the evidence review based on the biological or identity basis, (3) identifying whether specific populations based on sex or gender were disproportionately affected by the condition, and (4) developing language to make a clear recommendation for sex and gender. The 2 topics reviewed (AAA screening and BRCA-related cancers) had multiple recommendations that were thought to be based on sex, not gender. However, the primary studies supporting these topics used gender-based language (eg, man, woman) when referring to study populations, without further clarification of these terms.60,61 For these 2 topics, no studies that addressed transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex populations met inclusion criteria. Thus, when assessing the available evidence, the USPSTF could not determine whether the findings could be applied to these specific populations and could only make recommendations based on sex assigned at birth for both AAA screening and BRCA counseling.

Further, there was no specific evidence for the effect of treatment with gender-conforming therapies (eg, hormonal, surgical) for transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or intersex individuals and its potential effects on the biological basis for these recommendations. For example, for a person assigned female sex at birth who had transitioned during or shortly after puberty to a transgender man and who received maintenance exogenous testosterone, it is unclear whether their risk for AAA or breast cancer would be that of someone born female or male, or if their risk was somewhere on a continuum. Thus, more research is needed to make specific evidence-based recommendations. Still, until such evidence is available, it will be essential to take an inclusive, respectful approach to making preventive service recommendations to avoid further marginalization of these populations.

Very early in the pilot process, the concept emerged of using neutral language in recommendations whenever possible. The first example adopted was using the term “pregnant persons” instead of referring to pregnant women. The USPSTF used this language in several recommendations not included in the planned pilot15,16 and received no comments, criticisms, or concerns with the transition in the language in their public comment periods or thereafter.

When not possible to use neutral language, the USPSTF decided it was more appropriate to use gender terms throughout the recommendation statement, even when the service was based on biology. However, the USPSTF developed explicit language in the Patient Population Under Consideration section to make the USPSTF intent clear to readers. This addition was first piloted in a 2019 AAA screening recommendation statement in which the recommendation stated, “the recommendations are stratified by “men” and “women,” although the net benefit estimates are driven by biologic sex (ie, male/female) rather than gender identity. Persons should consider their sex at birth to determine which recommendation best applies to them.14 Similar language was used for the recommendation statement on BRCA-related cancer.17 The USPSTF received no comments or feedback, positive or negative, about using this language during the public posting periods for the draft recommendation statement or when the final recommendation statements were published.

Position Statement

The USPSTF is committed to promoting health equity for diverse populations, including based on sex and gender, and ensuring both the specificity and inclusivity of its recommendations. Therefore, the USPSTF will advance its methods and language in every step of its recommendation development process, as outlined in the Box.

Box Section Ref ID
Box.

USPSTF Methods for Considering Sex and Gender in Recommendations

Developing the Research Plan
  • Prior to developing the research plan for a new or updated recommendation, the USPSTF will consider potential sex and gender issues, including:

    • How biology (sex) and identity (gender) inform the risks, outcomes, and provision of the preventive service;

    • Whether certain populations based on sex, gender, or both may be disproportionately affected by a condition or susceptible to variation in the effectiveness of the preventive service; and

    • Whether there is potentially adequate evidence to consider a specific review and recommendation for transgender, intersex, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming populations.

  • Based on the above considerations, the USPSTF will develop a research plan to guide the systematic evidence review.

    • Unless explicitly stated, the research plan will be inclusive to identify available evidence applying to diverse populations based on sex and gender.

    • As appropriate, specific sex and gender, including transgender, intersex, and gender nonconforming populations, will be identified explicitly in the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

  • Prior to finalizing any research plan, the USPSTF seeks additional input from outside review, as appropriate to the topic, and public comment. All public comments are considered.

    • As appropriate, the USPSTF will seek input from topic experts with knowledge related to sex and gender if applicable to the recommendation.

Conducting the Systematic Evidence Review
  • The EPC will conduct the evidence review based on the defined research plan.

  • As appropriate, the EPC will seek out sex- and gender-specific evidence, including:

    • Incidence and prevalence of target condition;

    • Outcomes of the preventive service;

    • Benefits from the preventive service; and

    • Harms from the preventive service.

  • Prior to finalizing the evidence review, the EPC will solicit external input, including topic input related to sex and gender as appropriate.

Assessing the Evidence to Make a Recommendation
  • When considering the evidence, the USPSTF will assess

    • How biological sex, gender identity, or both, pertain to the evidence;

    • Applicability of evidence to transgender, intersex, and gender nonconforming populations;

    • Variability in the quality of evidence based on sex, gender, or both; and

    • Whether the net benefit varies based on sex, gender, or both.

  • Per the USPSTF methodology, all recommendations, including sex- and gender-based recommendations, will be based on (1) the certainty of the evidence and (2) the magnitude of net benefit.

  • The USPSTF will consider recommendations to be inclusive unless evidence is not applicable to specific populations.

  • The USPSTF will make specific sex and/or gender recommendations when there is at least moderate certainty that there is differential magnitude of net benefit for a preventive service.

Communicating to Users of USPSTF Recommendations
  • To promote clarity and inclusion in its recommendations, the USPSTF will make a clear statement about who the recommendation applies to with respect to sex and gender in the Patient Population Under Consideration section, using

    • Sex- and gender-neutral terms when appropriate (eg, persons);

    • Clarify whether persons and clinicians should consider their sex at birth, gender, and/or anatomy when determining to whom the recommendation applies;

    • Clear and respectful terms, including transgender, intersex, gender nonbinary, or gender nonconforming when specific to those populations.

  • When there is at least moderate certainty that there is a different magnitude in net benefit for a preventive service based on sex, gender, or both, the USPSTF will assign a different letter grade and highlight the difference in the Recommendation Summary.

  • Information on populations with variation in condition incidence and prevalence, preventive service outcomes, benefits from the preventive service, or harms from the preventive service based on sex, gender, or both will be highlighted in the Practice Considerations section, even if the evidence is too limited to make a specific sex- and/or gender-specific recommendation.

  • As appropriate, the USPSTF will summarize whether evidence is available for transgender, intersex, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming populations in the Clinical Considerations section and call for more evidence for these populations as needed in the Evidence Gaps section.

  • Prior to finalizing a recommendation statement, the USPSTF will seek additional input from outside review and public comment. All public comments will be considered and, as appropriate, the USPSTF will seek input from topic experts with knowledge related to sex and gender.

Abbreviations: EPC, evidence-based practice center; USPSTF, US Preventive Services Task Force.

Developing the Research Plan

When making a new recommendation or updating an existing recommendation, the USPSTF collaboratively creates a research plan with an EPC. The research plan defines the key questions that need to be answered with evidence for the USPSTF to make a recommendation and defines the types of evidence and populations included in the review. At the outset of this process, the USPSTF will consider whether the preventive service is expected to be applied according to biological or physiologic sex characteristics, gender identity, or potentially both. This consideration will be guided by whether specific populations have a higher prevalence or experience worse outcomes from a condition or if there are unique considerations for risk assessment or service delivery based on sex or gender identity.6 If specific sex or gender populations are not called out in the research plan for inclusion or exclusion, the research plan will be considered inclusive of all populations. Once a draft research plan is created, the USPSTF will seek review by transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex individuals and groups with specific expertise in representing these populations, as appropriate. Input will be incorporated into the final research plan.

Evidence Review

Based on the research plan, EPC investigators will conduct the systematic review. Each systematic review provides background on the epidemiology across all relevant populations (eg, incidence, prevalence, and mortality); systematically searches the literature for evidence to address each key question in the research plan; conducts data abstraction, critical appraisal, data analysis, and synthesis; and summarizes the evidence in a report. The full systematic review is available and published with each USPSTF recommendation. Throughout this process, EPC investigators will aim to describe the gender of participants from the included studies accurately. They will also note when the terminology used in the underlying evidence is unclear or based on assumptions about gender or the biology of participants. The language will be included in the EPC report to acknowledge the absence or incompleteness of information on gender and biological sex and its implications for the interpretation and applicability of the evidence. EPC investigators also will seek review by transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals and groups with specific expertise in representing these populations for services with unique considerations for these communities.

Assessing the Evidence

When assessing the evidence to make a recommendation, the USPSTF will consider the sex or gender identity basis of the evidence; applicability of evidence to transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming populations and to intersex persons; variability in the quality of evidence based on sex or gender; and whether the net benefit varies based on sex or gender. Consistent with USPSTF methods, letter grade assignments will be based on the certainty and net magnitude of benefits (eg, benefits minus harms) based on the evidence. In many cases, the USPSTF may not have adequate certainty to make a specific letter grade recommendation but may decide that the available evidence applies to transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex persons. In this case, the USPSTF may specifically mention these populations in the Patient Population Under Consideration or Clinical Considerations sections.

Communicating Recommendations

Whenever appropriate, the USPSTF will use sex- and gender-neutral terms. The use of gender-neutral language does not seek to deny or diminish the importance of gender in framing personal and social life, nor does it preclude a synthesis of the evidence that recognizes the unique social, economic, and political factors that influence the health risks that accrue to people based on sex and gender. In cases in which the recommendation is to be applied to specific populations based on sex or gender, the USPSTF will make a clear statement to whom the recommendation applies in the Patient Population Under Consideration section. In the Practice Considerations section, the USPSTF will review the evidence supporting the basis for a recommendation focused on a specific population defined by biological sex or gender attributes. When the USPSTF finds important evidence gaps for transgender, gender nonbinary, and gender nonconforming persons, the USPSTF will call for more evidence in the Research Needs and Gaps section of the recommendation.

Conclusions

The USPSTF intends that these new approaches for developing recommendations attuned to sex and gender diversity will improve the clarity of its statements and help clinicians and their patients make informed decisions about preventive care. The USPSTF plans to continue its engagement with individuals and groups with specific expertise in representing these populations to learn how best to formulate recommendations that are gender inclusive, more clearly communicate with regard to sex and gender diversity, and improve understanding of the research gaps. This policy statement should be viewed as a first step in advancing the task force’s methods on these issues. The USPSTF updates its recommendations for each preventive services topic, with a goal of approximately every 5 years. As topics are updated, the approaches outlined above will be applied during the updates. The process is underway or complete for several topics and will continue over the next several years for all others.

It is common for the USPSTF to identify evidence gaps for specific populations of patients—even when there is evidence that these populations are more likely to be diagnosed or experience specific preventable conditions.62 The evidence gaps for preventive services are substantial for transgender, gender nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex persons, limiting the ability of the USPSTF to make a specific recommendation. As science and understanding evolve, the USPSTF will remain committed to advancing its processes and methods to further promote equity for all persons regardless of sex or gender. However, until primary studies that inform USPSTF recommendations adopt more nuanced approaches to assessment and reporting on the sex and gender of study participants, there will continue to be gaps in the evidence and challenges to formulating and communicating inclusive clinical recommendations.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Carol M. Mangione, MD, MSPH, Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, 1100 Glendon Ave, Ste 850, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (cmangione@mednet.ucla.edu).

Accepted for Publication: August 31, 2021.

Published Online: October 25, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.15731

Author Contributions: Dr Caughey had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The US Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) support the operations of the USPSTF.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: AHRQ staff assisted in the writing and preparation of this report and its submission for publication. AHRQ staff had no role in the approval of the final report or the decision to submit for publication.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Additional Information: We would like to acknowledge Madeline Deutsch, MD, MPH (University of California San Francisco), Jennifer Potter, MD (Harvard Medical School), and Howard Libman, MD (Harvard Medical School), who provided valuable feedback on early drafts of the USPSTF approach. Martha Duffy, MD, MPH, provided support in cataloging USPSTF recommendations and reviewing guidelines from other organizations and feedback on draft language for recommendations. Drs Deutsch, Potter, Libman, and Duffy did not receive compensation for their contributions to this paper. Amy Cantor, MD, MPH, and Elizabeth O’Connor, PhD, are members of the review teams that support the USPSTF and were involved in pilot testing the approach during systematic reviews. Drs Cantor and O’Connor received compensation through their work as part of the Evidence-based Practice Centers’ (EPC) (Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center and Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, respectively) support of the USPSTF.

References
1.
Meerwijk  EL, Sevelius  JM.  Transgender population size in the United States: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples.   Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303578 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Crissman  HP, Berger  MB, Graham  LF, Dalton  VK.  Transgender demographics: a household probability sample of US adults, 2014.   Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):213-215. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303571 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Edmiston  EK, Donald  CA, Sattler  AR, Peebles  JK, Ehrenfeld  JM, Eckstrand  KL.  Opportunities and gaps in primary care preventative health services for transgender patients: a systemic review.   Transgend Health. 2016;1(1):216-230. doi:10.1089/trgh.2016.0019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rosendale  N, Goldman  S, Ortiz  GM, Haber  LA.  Acute clinical care for transgender patients: a review.   JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1535-1543. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4179 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Tabaac  AR, Sutter  ME, Wall  CSJ, Baker  KE.  Gender identity disparities in cancer screening behaviors.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(3):385-393. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.11.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Whitlock  E, Wolff  T,  et al.  Developing recommendations for evidence-based clinical preventive services for diverse populations: methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force.   Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(8):565-571. doi:10.7326/M16-2656 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Petitti  DB, Teutsch  SM, Barton  MB, Sawaya  GF, Ockene  JK, DeWitt  T; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Update on the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence.   Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(3):199-205. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-3-200902030-00010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Krist  AH, Wolff  TA, Jonas  DE,  et al.  Update on the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: methods for understanding certainty and net benefit when making recommendations.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(1S1)(1 suppl 1):S11-S18. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.09.011PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Boehmer  U.  Twenty years of public health research: inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations.   Am J Public Health. 2002;92(7):1125-1130. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1125 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Barton  MB, Miller  T, Wolff  T,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the US Preventive Services Task Force.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(2):123-127. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-2-200707170-00171 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kurth  AE, Krist  AH, Borsky  AE,  et al.  US Preventive Services Task Force methods to communicate and disseminate recommendations for clinical preventive services.   Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(1 suppl 1):S81-S87. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Epling  JW, Borsky  AE, Gerteis  J.  Improvements to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(12):1143-1144. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11311 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Siu  AL; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279-296. doi:10.7326/M15-2886 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(22):2211-2218. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.18928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(12):1188-1194. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13069 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons to prevent preterm delivery: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;323(13):1286-1292. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2684 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-665. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.10987 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Medication use to reduce risk of breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(9):857-867. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11885 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Primary care interventions to support breastfeeding: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;316(16):1688-1693. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14697 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Davidson  KW, Barry  MJ, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(10):949-956. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.14081 PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Siu  AL, Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).  Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;315(4):380-387. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18392PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(2):183-189. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.19438PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gestational diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(6):531-538. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.11922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(9):947-953. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0807PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(4):349-354. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9365PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;318(22):2224-2233. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.18261PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-2213. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6390 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(23):2326-2336. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6587PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Final recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(16):1678-1687. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14741PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Siu  AL; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for iron deficiency anemia and iron supplementation in pregnant women to improve maternal health and birth outcomes: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):529-536. doi:10.7326/M15-1707PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for elevated blood lead levels in children and pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;321(15):1502-1509. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3326PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(24):2521-2531. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7498PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for ovarian cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(6):588-594. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21926PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for preeclampsia: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2017;317(16):1661-1667. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3439PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia and related morbidity and mortality: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(12):1186-1191.Google ScholarCrossref
37.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901-1913. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3710 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Screening for Rh (D) incompatibility: recommendation statement. US Preventive Services Task Force. Published February 15, 2004. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/final-evidence-review86/rh-d-incompatibility-screening
39.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-681. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.13095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Bibbins-Domingo  K, Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).  Screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant adults and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2016;315(21):2321-2327. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5824PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for testicular cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(7):483-486. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-7-201104050-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2021;325(3):265-279. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.25019PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Grossman  DC, Curry  SJ, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;319(15):1592-1599. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3185PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Our Partners. US Preventive Services Task Force. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/about-uspstf/our-partners
45.
National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office. Methods and measurement in sexual & gender minority health research. National Institutes of Health. Reviewed January 27, 2021. Accessed February 2021. https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/sgmro/measurement
46.
Transgender health resources. American Academy of Family Physicians. Accessed February 2021. https://www.aafp.org/membership/welcome-center/involve/connect/constituencies-forums/lgbt/transgender.html
47.
Rafferty  J; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Committee on Adolescence; Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health and Wellness.  Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents.   Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):e20182162. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-2162 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Section on LGBT Health and Wellness (SOLGBTHW) website. American Academy of Pediatrics. Accessed February 2021. https://www.aap.org/en/community/aap-sections/lgbt-health-and-wellness/
49.
Landry  J, Kensler  P.  Providing culturally sensitive care to women who are in the sexual minority or are gender nonconforming.   Nurs Womens Health. 2019;23(2):163-171. doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2019.01.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Daniel  H, Butkus  R; Health and Public Policy Committee of American College of Physicians.  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health disparities: executive summary of a policy position paper from the American College of Physicians.   Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(2):135-137. doi:10.7326/M14-2482 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
 Committee Opinion No. 512: health care for transgender individuals.   Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1454-1458. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823ed1c1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Advocating for the LGBTQ community. American Medical Association. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/advocating-lgbtq-community
53.
Topic: LGBT. American Osteopathic Association. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://thedo.osteopathic.org/tag/lgbt/
54.
American Psychological Association.  Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people.   Am Psychol. 2015;70(9):832-864. doi:10.1037/a0039906 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
 Health risks and needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents position statement.   J Pediatr Health Care. 2011;25(6):A9-A10. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2011.07.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
PCORI’s LGBT health portfolio works to address major disparities. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Published May 11, 2018. Accessed February 2021. https://www.pcori.org/blog/pcoris-lgbt-health-portfolio-works-address-major-disparities
57.
Deutsch  MB, Feldman  JL.  Updated recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care.   Am Fam Physician. 2013;87(2):89-93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
UCSF Transgender Care Department of Family and Community Medicine. Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People. 2nd ed. University of California San Francisco. Published June 17, 2016. Accessed February 2021. https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines
59.
Coleman  EA, Bockting  W, Botzer  M,  et al.  Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. 7th ed. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Published 2012. Accessed September 1, 2021. https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.700873
60.
Guirguis-Blake  JM, Beil  TL, Senger  CA, Coppola  EL.  Primary care screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2019;322(22):2219-2238. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Nelson  HD, Pappas  M, Cantor  A, Haney  E, Holmes  R.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2019;322(7):666-685. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.8430 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Doubeni  CA, Simon  M, Krist  AH.  Addressing systemic racism through clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force.   JAMA. 2021;325(7):627-628. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.26188 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×