Through the Prism: Shining Light on LGBTQIA+ Applicant Identities and Influences

INTRODUCTION: Program diversity impacts rank-list creation for emergency medicine (EM)-bound applicants, but how lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and other sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQIA+) identities influence residency selection is unknown. This study investigates general patterns in EM applicant LGBTQIA+ identities, disclosure of those identities, and how LGBTQIA+ factors impact residency selection. Additionally, we present data exploring the relationship between medical school location and the location of top-ranked programs for LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ identifying applicants. METHODS: We surveyed 2,287 EM-bound United States MD/DO applicants who applied to one of five author EM programs and programs affiliated with the Emergency Medicine Education Research Alliance from May 16-June 30, 2024. The survey included multiple-choice, free-text, and Likert scale questions. Data were explored with descriptive statistics, and we used chi-square and Fisher exact tests to compare differences in proportions. We also analyzed applicants' medical school state and a graphical representation of the top three positions on their residency rank lists, using inverse-proportional weighting. RESULTS: Of 445 respondents (19.4%), 59 (13.3%) identified as LGBTQIA+. Gender identities included 173 cisgender men (38.9%), 254 cisgender women (57.1%), one transgender man (0.2%), one transgender woman (0.2%), four non-binary (0.9%), one genderqueer (0.2%), and seven "preferred not to answer" (1.6%). Among LGBTQIA+ respondents, seven (11.9%) disclosed their status within the application, nine (15.3%) during the interview, 18 (30.5%) in both, and 25 (42.4%) did not disclose. Among 56 respondents, 36 (64.3%) supported adding LGBTQIA+ status to the residency application; 20 (35.7%) did not. Of the program factors considered, program diversity (91.1%) and commitment to underserved communities (96.4%) were significantly more important for LGBTQIA+ respondents (P < .01), while proximity to partner(s) (64.3%; P < .01) and program length (66.1%; P = .02) were significantly less important compared with non-LGBTQIA+ respondents. Additional factors that influenced LGBTQIA+ applicants' rank list included political environment, friendliness of the learning environment, and presence/absence of anti-LGBTQIA+ laws. CONCLUSION: Many LGBTQIA+ applicants do not disclose their identities when applying for residency. LGBTQIA+ respondents value program diversity and commitment to underserved communities, and they consider LGBTQIA+-specific factors such as the presence of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation. These insights can inform residency programs and recruitment practices.