Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals continue to experience health disparities related to discrimination and health professional inadequacies despite increasing social acceptance of the LGBT community in society. Understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the healthcare of LGBT individuals among healthcare professionals can enable gender-affirming healthcare for the LGBT community. However, there is a need for a culturally relevant and updated tool to describe healthcare professionals' interactions with the LGBT community.

The objective of this study is to describe the development of the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices towards LGBT in Healthcare Questionnaire (KAP-LHQ) and demonstrate its content and face validity.

The KAP-LHQ was developed using a two-phase process. Phase 1 involved the generation of items through a literature review and discussions among the authors Phase two included the evaluation of its content and face validity. Content validity was determined by six experts using the Content Validity Index, while ten healthcare professionals evaluated the tool for face validity.

The KAP-LHQ demonstrated good content and face validity. Content validity indices were high. Item-Level CVI (I-CVI) ranges from 0.83 to 1.00 for the items under the Knowledge section and has a Scale-Level CVI (S-CVI) of 0.97. The Attitude section items scored an I-CVI of 0.83 to 1.00 and a S-CVI of 0.99, while most of the Practices section items scored an I-CVI of 1.00 with an overall S-CVI of 0.94. One item was omitted on the final version for having an I-CVI of 0.67. Face validity of the final questionnaire across parameters has a median of 4 out of 4, reflecting the appropriateness, comprehensibility, and relevance of the questionnaire.

The KAP-LHQ appears to be a valid tool that has the potential for assessing the KAP of health professions to improve training and increasese healthcare outcomes for the LGBT community. Using the tool on a larger population can firmly establish its efficacy, further validity, and even reliability.