Dataset Information

Gender minority stress and access to health care services among transgender women and transfeminine people: results from a cross-sectional study in China

ABSTRACT:

Background

Transgender and gender diverse individuals often face structural barriers to health care because of their gender minority status. The aim of this study was to examine the association between gender minority stress and access to specific health care services among transgender women and transfeminine people in China.

Methods

This multicenter cross-sectional study recruited participants between January 1st and June 30th 2020. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, assigned male at birth, not currently identifying as male, and living in China. Gender minority stress was measured using 45 items adapted from validated subscales. We examined access to health care services and interventions relevant to transgender and gender diverse people, including gender affirming interventions (hormones, surgeries), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Multivariable regression was used to measure correlations between gender minority stress and access to health care service.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-four people completed a survey and data from 277 (85.5%) people were analyzed. The mean age was 29 years old (standard deviation [SD] = 8). Participants used hormones (118/277, 42.6%), gender affirming surgery (26/277, 9.4%), HIV testing (220/277, 79.4%), STI testing (132/277, 47.7%), PrEP (24/276, 8.7%), and PEP (29/267, 10.9%). Using gender affirming hormones was associated with higher levels of discrimination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–1.70) and internalized transphobia (aOR 1.06, 95%CI 1.00–1.12). STI testing was associated with lower levels of internalized transphobia (aOR 0.91, 95%CI 0.84–0.98).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that gender minority stress is closely related to using health services. Stigma reduction interventions and gender-affirming medical support are needed to improve transgender health.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06782-5.

SUBMITTER: Sha Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8514805 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious Canadian studies have identified problems regarding health care access for transgender (trans) and nonbinary people, but all-ages national data have been lacking. This study describes access to care among trans and nonbinary people in Canada, and compares health care access across provinces or regions.MethodsWe conducted a bilingual, multimode cross-sectional survey (Trans PULSE Canada) from July 26 to Oct. 1, 2019. We recruited trans and nonbinary people aged 14 years and older using convenience sampling. We assessed 5 outcomes: having a primary care provider, having a primary care provider with whom the respondent was comfortable discussing trans health issues, past-year unmet health care need, medical gender affirmation status, and being on a wait-list to access gender-affirming medical care. Average marginal predictions were estimated from multivariable logistic regression models with multiply imputed data.ResultsThe survey included 2873 participants, and 2217 surveys were analyzed after exclusions. Of the 2217 trans and nonbinary respondents, most had a primary care provider (n = 1803; 81.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 79.8%-83.0%), with model-predicted probabilities from 52.1% (95% CI 20.2%-84.1%) in the territories to 92.9% (95% CI 83.5%-100.0%) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the respondents, 52.3% (n = 1150; 95% CI 50.3%-54.2%) had a primary care provider with whom they were comfortable discussing trans health issues, and 44.4% (n = 978; 95% CI 42.3%-46.4%) reported an unmet health care need. Among participants who needed gender-affirming medical treatment (n = 1627), self-defined treatment completion ranged from an estimated 16.8% (95% CI 0.6%-32.5%) in Newfoundland and Labrador to 59.1% (95% CI 52.5%-65.6%) in Quebec. Of those who needed but had not completed gender-affirming care at the time of the study (n = 1046), 40.7% (n = 416; 95% CI 37.8%-43.6%) were on a wait-list, most often for surgery. These outcomes, with the exception of having a provider with whom one is comfortable discussing trans issues, varied significantly by province or region (p < 0.05).InterpretationParticipants reported considerable unmet needs or delays in primary, general and gender-affirming care, with significant regional variation. Our results indicate that, despite efforts toward equity in access to care for trans and nonbinary people in Canada, inequities persist.

Project description:ImportanceAdvance care planning (ACP) can promote patient-centered end-of-life (EOL) care and is intended to ensure that medical treatments are aligned with patient's values. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people face greater discrimination in health care settings compared with heterosexual, cisgender people, but it is unknown whether such discrimination occurs in ACP and how it might affect the ACP experiences of SGM people.ObjectivesTo increase understanding of barriers and facilitators of ACP facing SGM individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis mixed-methods national study of ACP included a telephone survey of self-identified SGM and non-SGM participants in a nationally representative sample drawn from a larger omnibus national panel by SSRS. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of survey participants who identified as SGM. Data were collected from October 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresSelf-identified SGM.Main outcomes and measuresThe survey included 4 items from the validated ACP Engagement Survey, adapted to capture experiences of discrimination. Interviews asked about participants' experiences with ACP, including the appointment of medical decision-makers, sharing preferences, and experiences within the health care system more broadly.ResultsA total of 603 adults participated in the survey, with 201 SGM individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.7 [18.7] years; 101 [50.2%] female; 22 [10.9%] Black, 37 [18.4%] Hispanic, and 140 [69.7%] White individuals) and 402 non-SGM individuals (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [19.2] years; 199 [49.5%] female; 35 [8.7%] Black, 41 [10.2%] Hispanic, and 324 [80.6%] White individuals). Regarding reasons for not completing ACP, SGM respondents, compared with non-SGM respondents, were more likely to say "I don't see the need" (72 [73.5%] vs 131 [57.2%], P = .006) and "I feel discriminated against by others" (12 [12.2%] vs 6 [2.6%], P < .001). Of 25 completed interviews among SGM participants, 3 main themes were identified: how fear and experiences of discrimination affect selection of clinicians and whether to disclose SGM identity; concerns about whether EOL preferences and medical decision-makers would be supported; and a preference to discuss EOL decisions and values outside of clinical settings.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that fear of disclosing sexual orientation or gender identity information and discrimination are important barriers to ACP for SGM in clinical settings, but discussions of preferences and values still occur between many SGM people and medical decision-makers. More SGM-specific patient-centered care might better support these discussions within the health care system. Furthermore, health systems can facilitate improved engagement by supporting clinician sensitivity training, including guidance on documentation and requirements.

Project description:IntroductionIncreased use of crystal methamphetamine ("crystal meth") has been observed across North America and international jurisdictions, including a notable increase in the presence of methamphetamines in illicit drug toxicity deaths in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We used data from a cross-sectional survey and urine toxicology screening to report the prevalence, correlates, and validity of self-reported crystal meth use among clients of harm reduction sites in BC.Materials and methodsSurvey data were collected from 1,107 participants across 25 communities in BC, through the 2018 and 2019 Harm Reduction Client Survey. We described reported substance use and used a multivariate logistic regression model to characterize crystal meth use. Urine samples provided by a subset of participants were used to derive validity of self-reported three-day crystal meth use compared to urine toxicology screening.ResultsExcluding tobacco, crystal meth was the most frequently reported substance used in the past three days in 2018 and 2019 (59.7% and 71.7%, respectively). Smoking was the dominant route of administration for crystal meth, crack, heroin, and fentanyl. Multivariate analysis determined significantly higher odds of crystal meth use among those who used opioids (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 3.13), cannabis (AOR = 2.10), and alcohol (1.41), and among those who were not regularly housed (AOR = 2.08) and unemployed (AOR = 1.75). Age ≥50 was inversely associated with crystal meth use (AOR = 0.63). Sensitivity of self-reported crystal meth use was 86%, specificity was 86%, positive predictive value was 96%, and negative predictive value was 65%.ConclusionsCrystal meth was the most commonly used substance among clients of harm reduction sites in BC in 2018 and 2019, and was frequently used concurrently with opioids. Comparison to urine samples demonstrated high validity of self-reported crystal meth use. Understanding evolving patterns of substance use will be imperative in tailoring harm reduction and substance use services for individuals that use crystal meth.

Project description:Background/objectivesWhile it is acknowledged that minority ethnic (ME) groups across international settings face barriers to accessing care for dementia, it is not clear whether ME groups access services less frequently as a result. The objective of this review is to examine whether ME groups have longer delays before accessing dementia/memory services, higher use of acute care and crisis services and lower use of routine care services based on existing literature. We also examined whether ME groups had higher dementia severity or lower cognition when presenting to memory services.DesignSystematic review with narrative synthesis.SettingNonresidential medical, psychiatric, memory, and emergency services.ParticipantsTwenty studies totaling 94,431 older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.MeasurementsWe searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, and PsycINFO from inception to November 2018 for peer-reviewed observational studies which quantified ethnic minority differences in nonresidential health service use in people with dementia. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings.ResultsTwenty studies were included, mostly from the U.S. (n = 13), as well as the UK (n = 4), Australia (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), and the Netherlands (n = 1). There was little evidence that ME groups in any country accessed routine care at different rates than comparison groups, although studies may have been underpowered. There was strong evidence that African American/Black groups had higher use of hospital inpatient services versus U.S. comparison groups. Primary care and emergency services were less well studied. Study quality was mixed, and there was a large amount of variability in the way ethnicity and service use outcomes were ascertained and defined.ConclusionThere is evidence that some ME groups, such as Black/African American groups in the U.S., may use more acute care services than comparison populations, but less evidence for differences in routine care use. Research is sparse, especially outside the U.S.