Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Earlier literature has reported on the utility of diagnostic codes and demographic information for identifying transgender patients. We aim to assess which method identifies the most transgender patients utilizing readily available tools from within the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:(ICD-10) diagnostic codes and demographic data specific to transgender patients from January 2011 to April 2019. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Demographic data and ICD-10 codes yielded 1494 individual EHRs with transgender-specific data domains. ICD-10 diagnostic codes alone identified 942 (63.05%) unique EHRs. Demographics alone identified 218 (14.59%) unique EHRs. A total of 334 (22.36%) unique EHRs had both ICD-10 and demographic identifiers. Of those identified by transgender-specific demographic data (552), 294 (53.26%) were trans masculine, 215 (38.95%) were trans feminine, and 43 (7.79%) were nonbinary. Of the 552 demographic-identified transgender patients, 141 (25.86%) were identified by a two-part gender identity demographic question. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:ICD-10 diagnostic codes, not demographic data, identified the most transgender patient records, but neither diagnostic codes alone nor demographic data captured the full population. Only 26.36% of the charts identified as transgender patients had both ICD-10 codes and demographic data. We recommend that when identifying transgender populations through EHR domains, a combination of diagnostic codes and demographic data be used. Furthermore, research is needed to optimize disclosure and collection of demographic information for gender minority populations.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:This article is by a group of trans and nonbinary researchers and experts in the field of trans health who have conducted an analysis of trans health research needs. AIMS/UNASSIGNED:To highlight topics that need further research and to outline key considerations for those conducting research in our field. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The first author conducted semi-structured interviews with all coauthors, and these were used to create a first draft of this manuscript. This draft was circulated to all authors, with edits made until consensus was reached among the authors. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:More comprehensive long-term research that centers trans people's experiences is needed on the risks and benefits of gender affirming hormones and surgeries. The trans health research field also needs to have a broader focus beyond medical transition or gender affirmation, including general health and routine healthcare; trans people's lives without, before, and after medical gender affirmation; and sexuality, fertility, and reproductive healthcare needs. More research is also needed on social determinants of health, including ways to make healthcare settings and other environments safer and more supportive; social and legal gender recognition; the needs of trans people who are most marginalized; and the ways in which healing happens within trans communities. The second part of this article highlights key considerations for researchers, the foremost being acknowledging trans community expertise and centering trans community members' input into research design and interpretation of findings, in advisory and/or researcher roles. Ethical considerations include maximizing benefits and minimizing harms (beneficence) and transparency and accountability to trans communities. Finally, we note the importance of conferences, grant funding, working with students, and multidisciplinary teams. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:This article outlines topics and issues needing further consideration to make the field of trans health research more responsive to the needs of trans people. This work is limited by our authorship group being mostly White, all being Anglophone, and residing in the Global North.

BACKGROUND:The 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. METHOD:Between 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. RESULTS:Participants 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. CONCLUSION:Though 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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in preventing HIV among adherent users. However, PrEP uptake among transgender women is low, and current prescribing guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are not specific to transgender women. Self-perceived risk of HIV among those who are PrEP-indicated is not well understood. METHODS:This cross-sectional analysis included 1293 transgender women screened at baseline from March 2018 to May 2020 for a multisite, prospective cohort study. We compared the prevalence of PrEP indication using current CDC prescribing criteria versus transgender women-specific criteria developed by study investigators with community input. We identified factors associated with study-specific PrEP indication and factors associated with self-perceived low to no HIV risk among those who were PrEP-indicated. We also calculated descriptive statistics to depict the PrEP care continuum. RESULTS:PrEP indication prevalence using transgender women-specific criteria was 47% (611), 155 more than who were identified using the CDC criteria. Eighty-three percent were aware of PrEP, among whom 38% had ever used PrEP. Among PrEP ever users, 63% were using PrEP at the time of the study. There were 66% of current PrEP users who reported 100% adherence within the previous 7 days. Among those who were PrEP-indicated, 13% were using and adherent to PrEP at the time of the study. More than half (55%) of PrEP-indicated participants had low or no self-perceived HIV risk. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that further guidance is needed for health care providers in prescribing PrEP to transgender women. Greater uptake and adherence are also needed for optimal effectiveness.