Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes Following Acute Residential Psychiatric Treatment in Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, who have a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, self-injurious behavior, and suicidality, relative to cisgender peers.

Objective

To examine mental health outcomes among TGD vs cisgender adolescents in residential treatment.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study's longitudinal design was used to compare groups at treatment entry and discharge, and 1-month postdischarge follow-up. The setting was an adolescent acute residential treatment program for psychiatric disorders. Participants were TGD or cisgender adolescents enrolled in the treatment program. Statistical analysis was performed October 2019 to March 2021.

Exposure

Adolescents participated in a 2-week acute residential treatment program for psychiatric disorders.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes were depressive (the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) and anxiety (the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children [MASC]) symptoms, and emotional dysregulation (the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale [DERS]), measured at treatment entry and discharge, and postdischarge follow-up. Age of depression onset, suicidality, self-injury, and childhood trauma also were assessed at treatment entry.

Results

Of 200 adolescent participants who completed treatment entry and discharge assessments, the mean (SD) age was 16.2 (1.5) years; 109 reported being assigned female at birth (54.5%), 35 were TGD (17.5%), and 66 (49.3%) completed 1-month follow-up. TGD participants had an earlier mean (SD) age of depression onset (TGD: 10.8 [2.4] years vs cisgender: 11.9 [2.3] years; difference: 1.07 years; 95% CI, 0.14-2.01 years; P = .02), higher mean (SD) suicidality scores (TGD: 44.4 [23.1] vs cisgender: 28.5 [25.4]; difference: 16.0; 95% CI, 6.4-25.5; P = .001), more self-injurious behavior (mean [SD] RBQ-A score for TGD: 3.1 [2.5] vs cisgender: 1.7 [1.9]; difference: 1.42; 95% CI, 0.69-2.21; P = .001) and more childhood trauma (eg, mean [SD] CTQ-SF score for emotional abuse in TGD: 12.7 [5.4] vs cisgender: 9.8 [4.7]; difference: 2.85; 95% CI, 1.06-4.64; P = .002). The TGD group also had higher symptom scores (CES-D mean difference: 7.69; 95% CI, 3.30 to 12.08; P < .001; MASC mean difference: 7.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 14.66; P = .04; and DERS mean difference: 18.43; 95% CI, 8.39 to 28.47; P < .001). Symptom scores were significantly higher at entry vs discharge (CES-D mean difference, -12.16; 95% CI, -14.50 to -9.80; P < .001; MASC mean difference: -3.79; 95% CI, -6.16 to -1.42; P = .02; and DERS mean difference: -6.37; 95% CI, -10.80 to -1.94; P = .05) and follow-up (CES-D mean difference: -9.69; 95% CI, -13.0 to -6.42; P < .001; MASC mean difference: -6.92; 95% CI, -10.25 to -3.59; P < .001; and DERS mean difference: -12.47; 95% CI, -18.68 to -6.26; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

This cohort study found mental health disparities in TGD youth relative to cisgender youth, with worse scores observed across assessment time points. For all participants, primary clinical outcome measures were significantly lower at treatment discharge than at entry, with no significant differences between discharge and 1-month follow-up. Given the substantial degree of mental health disparities reported in TGD individuals, these findings warrant focused clinical attention to optimize treatment outcomes in gender minority populations.

SUBMITTER: Silveri MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8218077 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTransgender and gender-diverse (TGD) communities experience disproportionate levels of violence, yet due to limitations in measuring TGD identity, few state-representative estimates are available.ObjectiveTo assess gender identity differences in experiences of violence among adults.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional data from the 2023 California Violence Experiences (CalVEX) survey, weighted to provide state-representative estimates, was used to assess associations between gender identity and past-year experiences of violence among adults 18 years and older. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023.ExposureGender identity (cisgender women, cisgender men, transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals).Main outcomes and measuresExperience of physical violence (including physical abuse and threat or use of a weapon), sexual violence (verbal sexual harassment, homophobic or transphobic slurs, cyber and physically aggressive sexual harassment, and forced sex), and intimate partner violence (IPV; emotional, physical, or sexual violence) using age-adjusted logistic regression.ResultsIn total 3560 individuals (weighted cumulative response rate, 5%) completed the 2023 CalVEX survey, with 1978 cisgender women, 1431 cisgender men, 35 transgender women, 52 transgender men, and 64 nonbinary respondents (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [17.5] years; 635 [17%] were Asian, 839 [37%] were Hispanic, and 1159 [37%] were White). Past-year physical violence was reported by 22 transgender men (43%), 9 transgender women (24%), and 9 nonbinary respondents (14%). Past-year sexual violence was reported by 23 transgender men (42%), 11 transgender women (14%), and 31 nonbinary respondents (56%). Compared with cisgender women, transgender women and transgender men had greater risk of past-year physical violence (any form) (transgender women adjusted incidence rate ratio [AIRR], 6.7; 95% CI, 2.5-18.2; transgender men AIRR, 9.7; 95% CI, 5.3-17.7), as well as past-year IPV (any form) (transgender women AIRR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; transgender men AIRR, 6.7; 95% CI, 4.0-11.3). Relative to cisgender women, transgender men (AIRR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.1) and nonbinary respondents (AIRR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.1-5.2) had greater risk of past-year sexual violence (any form).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study of adults in California, results showed that TGD individuals, especially transgender men, are at higher risk of experiencing all forms of violence relative to cisgender women. Results highlight the need for gender-affirming violence prevention and intervention services as well as policies that protect TGD individuals from discriminatory violence.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.MethodBetween September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N = 28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.ResultsParticipants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) men, 3 (10.7%) women, 8 (28.6%) transgender men, 10 (35.7%) transgender women, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a 'cisgender lens", distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.ConclusionThough similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.