Transgender stigma: A critical scoping review of definitions, domains, and measures used in empirical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Rationale
A growing body of transgender (trans) health research has explored the relationship between stigma and health; yet, studies have conceptualized and operationalized anti-trans stigma in multiple ways.Objective
This scoping review aims to critically analyze quantitative measures of anti-trans stigma in the U.S. using a socioecological framework.Method
We organized and appraised measures from 126 included articles according to socioecological level: structural, interpersonal, or individual.Results
Of the identified articles, 36 measured anti-trans stigma at the structural level (i.e., institutional structures and policies), 102 measured anti-trans at the interpersonal level (i.e., community interactions), and 44 measured anti-trans stigma at the individual level (i.e., internalized or anticipated stigma). Definitions of anti-trans stigma varied substantially across articles. Most measures were adapted from measures developed for other populations (i.e., sexual minorities) and were not previously validated for trans samples.Conclusions
Studies analyzing anti-trans stigma should concretely define anti-trans stigma. There is a need to develop measures of anti-trans stigma at all socioecological levels informed by the lived experiences of trans people.
SUBMITTER: King WM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7442603 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAssessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes.DesignScoping review.SettingWe queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family).SubjectsManuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments).ConclusionsA comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.
| S-EPMC7708523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGlobally, transgender and other gender diverse (trans) people face pervasive stigma, which contributes to health inequities across multiple health outcomes. Stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequities because it simultaneously limits access to resources, contributes to systemic vulnerability and generates chronic stress. Anti-trans stigma occurs across multiple socioecological levels, resulting in multiple possible definitions and measurements of trans stigma. Understanding how trans stigma has been measured in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to health promotion efforts for trans communities. Accordingly, this scoping review will identify and examine how anti-trans stigma has been measured in existing LMIC-specific research to inform best practices for measurement of anti-trans stigma that includes consideration of local context.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a scoping review of anti-trans stigma in LMICs. We will search (from January 2001 to December 2021) PubMed, WHO Global Medicus and EBSCO. Study selection will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Original studies in English, Spanish, Arabic or Russian will be included. Reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Data analysis will involve quantitative and qualitative methods. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review (no direct interaction with participants), this study is exempt from human subjects oversight. Understanding context-specific ways to measure anti-trans stigma is urgently needed to support trans health globally. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely in other media such as conferences, seminars and symposia. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/qcs2v.
| S-EPMC9263898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although the last decade has seen a proliferation of research on mental illness stigma, lack of consistency and clarity in both the conceptualization and measurement of mental illness stigma has limited the accumulation of scientific knowledge about mental illness stigma and its consequences. In the present article, we bring together the different foci of mental illness stigma research with the Mental Illness Stigma Framework (MISF). The MISF provides a common framework and set of terminology for understanding mechanisms of mental illness stigma that are relevant to the study of both the stigmatized and the stigmatizer. We then apply this framework to systematically review and classify stigma measures used in the past decade according to their corresponding stigma mechanisms. We identified more than 400 measures of mental illness stigma, two thirds of which had not undergone any systematic psychometric evaluation. Stereotypes and discrimination received the most research attention, while mechanisms that focus on the perspective of individuals with mental illness (e.g., experienced, anticipated, or internalized stigma) have been the least studied. Finally, we use the MISF to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of mental illness stigma measurement, identify gaps in the literature, and provide recommendations for future research.
| S-EPMC6261312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented many multi-faceted challenges to the maintenance of service quality and safety, highlighting the need for resilient and responsive healthcare systems more than ever before. This review examined empirical investigations of Resilient Health Care (RHC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to: identify key areas of research; synthesise findings on capacities that develop RHC across system levels (micro, meso, macro); and identify reported adverse consequences of the effort of maintaining system performance on system agents (healthcare workers, patients).MethodsThree academic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) from 1st January 2020 to 30th August 2022 using keywords pertaining to: systems resilience and related concepts; healthcare and healthcare settings; and COVID-19. Capacities that developed and enhanced systems resilience were synthesised using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.ResultsFifty publications were included in this review. Consistent with previous research, studies from high-income countries and the use of qualitative methods within the context of hospitals, dominated the included studies. However, promising developments have been made, with an emergence of studies conducted at the macro-system level, including the development of quantitative tools and indicator-based modelling approaches, and the increased involvement of low- and middle-income countries in research (LMIC). Concordant with previous research, eight key resilience capacities were identified that can support, develop or enhance resilient performance, namely: structure, alignment, coordination, learning, involvement, risk awareness, leadership, and communication. The need for healthcare workers to constantly learn and make adaptations, however, had potentially adverse physical and emotional consequences for healthcare workers, in addition to adverse effects on routine patient care.ConclusionsThis review identified an upsurge in new empirical studies on health system resilience associated with COVID-19. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine RHC in practice, and uncovered emerging new evidence on RHC theory and system factors that contribute to resilient performance at micro, meso and macro levels. These findings will enable leaders and other stakeholders to strengthen health system resilience when responding to future challenges and unexpected events.
| S-EPMC10405417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Various methods have been used to interpret the reports of pediatric polypharmacy across the literature. This is the first scoping review that explores outcome measures in pediatric polypharmacy research. Objectives:The aim of our study was to describe outcome measures assessed in pediatric polypharmacy research. Methods:A search of electronic databases was conducted in July 2017, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, Elsevier Embase, Wiley Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCO CINAHL, Ovid PsyclNFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis A&I. Data were extracted about study characteristics and outcome measures, and also synthesized by harms or benefits mentioned. Results:The search strategy initially identified 8169 titles and screened 4398 using the inclusion criteria after de-duplicating. After the primary screening, a total of 363 studies were extracted for the data analysis. Polypharmacy (prevalence) was identified as an outcome in 31.4% of the studies, prognosis-related outcomes in 25.6%, and adverse drug reactions in 16.5%. A total of 265 articles (73.0%) mentioned harms, including adverse drug reactions (26.4%), side effects (24.2%), and drug-drug interactions (20.9%). A total of 83 studies (22.9%) mentioned any benefit, 48.2% of which identified combination for efficacy, 24.1% combination for treatment of complex diseases, and 19.3% combination for treatment augmentation. Thirty-eight studies reported adverse drug reaction as an outcome, where polypharmacy was a predictor, with various designs. Conclusions:Most studies of pediatric polypharmacy evaluate prevalence, prognosis, or adverse drug reaction-related out-comes, and underscore harms related to polypharmacy. Clinicians should carefully weigh benefits and harms when introducing medications to treatment regimens.
| S-EPMC7123381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.ResultsFew studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial--randomised or otherwise--of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review.DiscussionOur findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.
| S-EPMC4520456 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9924289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/34907.].
| S-EPMC9389390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile transgender people worldwide face high rates of stigma and discrimination, there are few studies of transgender men (also "trans men") in Asia. We measured the prevalence of, and factors associated with, stigma and discrimination faced by trans men in Bhutan to bring visibility to their experiences and inform health and social policy changes.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey was conducted in nine regions in Bhutan from November 2019 to January 2020. A total of 124 trans men were recruited using a hybrid venue-based and peer-referral approach. Data were collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression characterized associations with experiencing stigma and discrimination when accessing health services.FindingsParticipants were young (48.0% 18-24 years) and 48.4% had migrated from a rural to an urban area. The majority (95.2%) experienced stigma because people knew or thought they were trans men. Associations with frequent experiences of stigma were living with their partner as a couple (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.07, 95% CI 1.27-7.44) and being unemployed or a student (3.22, 1.44-7.19). Nearly half (47.6%) said they experienced discrimination when accessing health care because people knew or thought they were a trans man; this experience was associated with migration (2.42, 1.08-5.39) and having >15 trans men in their social network (3.73, 1.69-8.26). Most (94.4%) experienced verbal violence, 10.5% experienced physical violence, and 4.8% experienced sexual violence.InterpretationOur study found high rates of stigma, discrimination, and interpersonal violence due to being a trans man in Bhutan. Findings highlight the urgent need for strengthening laws and regulations to protect the rights of transgender persons, particularly when accessing health services, recognizing partnerships, and preventing violence in public spaces.
| S-EPMC10358905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGlobally, transgender populations are disproportionally impacted by HIV and effective HIV prevention interventions targeting these populations are critically needed. Such interventions require research focused on the specific needs and experiences of transgender people. This methodological review aims to determine the extent to which HIV prevention research has included transgender participants by subsuming them into non-transgender populations, or by centring them either in comparison with other groups or as the sole focus of research.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases (e.g. SCOPUS) for empirical studies that focused on HIV prevention and included transgender participants, published through 31 December 2020. For each study, we extracted information on: (a) types of inclusion of transgender participants; (b) total sample size and number/percentage of transgender participants; (c) country(ies) where study was conducted; (d) HIV research topics; (e) methods (i.e. quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods research) and (f) gender identity of transgender participants.Results and discussionOf 667 HIV prevention studies included in the review, 38.5% subsumed transgender participants into cisgender populations (most frequently combining transgender women with cisgender men who have sex with men), 20.4% compared transgender and cisgender participants and 41.1% focused exclusively on transgender populations. Our global scoping review also revealed that these three types of transgender inclusion in HIV prevention research vary greatly over time, place and thematic areas. Transgender women are the focus of the majority of reviewed studies, whereas transgender men and gender expansive people are rarely included as participants.ConclusionsInclusion of transgender persons as participants in HIV prevention research has significantly increased, particularly in the last decade. Further research centred on transgender participants and their experiences are needed to develop effective HIV prevention interventions for transgender populations. We advocate for HIV prevention research to move from subsuming transgender people, to trans-centred research that asks questions that focus on their specific needs and experiences. We provide recommendations to move from trans-subsumed to trans-centred HIV prevention research.
| S-EPMC8412127 | biostudies-literature