Performing informed consent in transgender medicine

Improving the integration of care for trans adults: ICTA a mixed-methods study

Background

This research concerns improving the National Health Service health services trans adults need. These include the national specialist Gender Identity Clinics that support people making a medical transition. Not all trans people need to make a medical transition, and transition can take many different paths. Waits to be seen by Gender Identity Clinics are, however, several years long, and there may be significant problems of co-ordination between different aspects of transition-related care, and between transition-related care and general health care.

Objectives

The main objectives were to understand: Which factors make services more or less accessible and acceptable to the variety of trans adults? How initiatives for providing more person-centred and integrated care can be successfully implemented and further improved?

Design, data sources and participants

An online and paper screening survey was used to gather data on demographics and service use of trans people across the United Kingdom, with 2056 responses. Researchers used survey data to construct five purposive subsamples for individual qualitative interviews, identifying groups of people more likely to experience social exclusion or stigma. There were 65 online interviews. In addition, 23 trans Black people and people of colour attended focus groups. Six case studies were completed: four on initiatives to improve care and two on experiences of particular trans populations. Fifty-five service provider staff and 45 service users were interviewed.

Results

The following undermine person-centred co-ordinated care and can lead to experiences of harm: lack of respectful treatment of trans people by general practitioner practices; inadequate funding of services; lack of support during waiting; the extended and challenging nature of Gender Identity Clinic diagnostic assessments, sometimes experienced as adversarial; breakdowns in collaboration between Gender Identity Clinics and general practitioner practices over hormone therapy; lack of National Health Service psychological support for trans people. Case studies indicated ways to improve care, although each has significant unresolved issues: training in trans health care for general practitioners; third-sector peer-support workers for trans people who come to National Health Services; gender services taking a collaborative approach to assessing what people need, clarifying treatment options, benefits and risks; regional general practitioner-led hormone therapy clinics, bringing trans health care into the mainstream; psychology services that support trans people rather than assess them.

Limitations

Some contexts of care and experiences of particular groups of trans people were not addressed sufficiently within the scope of the project. While efforts were made to recruit people subject to multiple forms of stigma, there remained gaps in representation.

Conclusions and future work

The findings have significant implications for commissioners and providers of existing National Health Services gender services, including recently established pilot services in primary care. In particular they point to the need for assessments for access to transition care to be more collaborative and culturally aware, implying the value of exploring informed consent models for accessing transition-related care. Further research is needed to investigate how far the findings apply with particular subpopulations.

Study registration

This study is registered as Research Registry, no. 5235.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/51/08) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 28. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Troubling Trends in Health Misinformation Related to Gender-Affirming Care

Amidst the misinformation climate about trans people and their health care that dominates policy and social discourse, autonomy-based rationales for gender-affirming care for trans and nonbinary youth are being called into question. In this commentary, which responds to "What Is the Aim of Pediatric 'Gender-Affirming' Care?," by Moti Gorin, we contextualize the virulent ideas circulating in misinformation campaigns that have become weaponized for unprecedented legal interference into standard health care. We conclude that the current legal justifications for upending gender-affirming care gloss over how this health care field meets conventional evidentiary standards and aligns protocols with most other fields of medicine. Refusal to offer gender-affirming care is more harmful than centralizing trans and nonbinary people's health autonomy.

Care in transition: Global norms, transnational adaptation, and family-centered gender-affirming care in China

In recent years, trans medicine has increasingly shifted towards gender-affirming care, focusing on assisting transgender people in finding safe and effective ways to support their gender identity. Through standards of care, clinical guidelines, and classification systems, international experts have established global norms with profound downstream implications. However, how local providers respond to these new norms remains underexplored. Drawing on ethnographic work in clinical settings, conferences, and 30 in-depth interviews with healthcare providers, I argue that family-centered gender-affirming care has emerged in China as providers strive to balance global ideals of "good" trans medicine with the constraints of the local healthcare system. While international standards assist providers in adopting a less pathologizing and binary view of care, they provide limited practical guidance for navigating local social and institutional challenges. Faced with a lack of legal and institutional support, providers increasingly rely on family members' involvement to mitigate medical dispute risks. This reliance manifests in two forms: restrictive gatekeeping, where care is delayed or denied based on family members' attitudes and providers' assessment of transgender adults' ability to lead a "normal life," and affective gatekeeping, where providers use psychological support and gender diversity education to involve family members as caregivers. These findings enrich sociological studies in global health by illustrating how the interactions between global norms and local healthcare systems can both alleviate and reproduce barriers to care.

Amand C, Gaddis M, Grimstad F. How Do Prescribing Clinicians Obtain Consent to Initiate Gender-Affirming Hormones?

Purpose

Multiple consent models exist for initiating gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). Our study aim was to examine the variety of approaches utilized by clinicians.

Methods

Online and in-person recruitment of clinicians involved in gender-affirming care was undertaken from June 2019 through March 2020. Participants completed an online survey.

Results

Of the 175 respondents, 148 prescribed GAHT. Sixty-one (41.2%) prescribed to adults only, 11 (7.4%) to minors only, and 76 (51.4%) prescribed to adults and minors. Of those who prescribed to adults, more than half (n=74, 54.4%) utilized a written consent model, one-fourth only verbal consent (n=33, 24.3%), and one-fifth required an additional mental health assessment (MHA) (n=29, 21.3%). Of those prescribing to minors, most required either written consent (n=39, 44.8%) or an additional MHA (n=35, 40.2%). Only 11 (12.6%) utilized only verbal consent for minors. Rationales provided for requiring an additional MHA in adults included protection from litigation, lack of competence in assessing psychosocial readiness for GAHT, and believing that this is the best way to ensure the patient has processed the information. Practicing in multidisciplinary clinics was associated with not requiring an MHA for adult GAHT.

Conclusion

Clinicians across fields are utilizing different models to provide the same treatment, with varying rationales for the same model. As a result, patients receive nonstandard access to care despite similar clinical presentations. Our study highlights an important area for further improvement in GAHT care.

The struggle with transnormativity: Non-binary identity work, embodiment desires, and experience with gender dysphoria

I examine how non-binary people who have considered, or accessed, gender-affirming health care experience accountability to transnormativity using 12 in-depth interviews conducted between 2018 and 2019 in a midwestern American city. I detail how non-binary people who want to embody genders that are still largely culturally unintelligible think about identity, embodiment, and gender dysphoria. Using grounded theory methodology, I find that non-binary identity work around medicalization differs from that of transgender men and women in three primary ways: 1) regarding how they understand and operationalize gender dysphoria, 2) in relation to their embodiment goals, and 3) concerning how they experience pressure to medically transition. Non-binary people describe increased ontological uncertainty about their gender identities when researching gender dysphoria that is contextualized by an internalized sense of accountability to the transnormative expectation for medicalization. They additionally anticipate a potential medicalization paradox, where accessing gender-affirming care leads to a different type of binary misgendering and risks making their gender identities less, rather than more, culturally intelligible to others. Non-binary people also experience external accountability to transnormativity as pressure from trans and medical communities to think about dysphoria as inherently binaristic, embodied, and medically treatable. These findings indicate that non-binary people experience accountability to transnormativity differently than trans men and women. Since non-binary people and their body projects often disrupt the transnormative tropes that are the framework for trans medicine, they find trans therapeutics, and the diagnostic experience of gender dysphoria, uniquely problematic. Non-binary experiences of accountability to transnormativity indicate the need to re-center trans medicine to better accommodate non-normative embodiment desires and focus future diagnostic revisions of gender dysphoria to emphasize the social aspects of trans and non-binary experience.

'Don't think that we die from AIDS': Invisibilised uncertainty and global transgender health

The invisibilisation of social groups in health research and survey data is a source of medical uncertainty, long seen as a hallmark of the medical field. However, scholarship has not thoroughly assessed how medical uncertainty is structured by state-level processes and global health agendas, especially for people beyond the Global North. This article introduces invisibilised uncertainty as a type of medical uncertainty structured by global organisational and state-level priorities, which can invisibilise social groups and health problems from research and data collection, exacerbating medical uncertainty and health disparities for people worldwide. Based on 14 months of fieldwork in Thailand and in-depth interviews with 62 participants, the article illuminates how state-level processes and global clinical research agendas have structured knowledge gaps and uncertainties for Thai transgender women. As omissions in health research and data collection become embodied on a world scale, the article expands our understandings of how gendered health disparities are structured nationally and globally. It advances a sociology of medical ignorance by analysing the uneven landscape of holistic transgender health research, parsing how institutional dynamics can prioritise or invisibilise people and health issues in research and data, and structure uncertainties.

Gendered Logics of Biomedical Research: Women in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials

Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and the public health of women. Using 191 interviews collected over 3 years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry's putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of "anticipatory motherhood" within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women's experiences in this context.

Decision-making approaches in transgender healthcare: conceptual analysis and ethical implications

Over the past decades, great strides have been made to professionalize and increase access to transgender medicine. As the (biomedical) evidence base grows and conceptualizations regarding gender dysphoria/gender incongruence evolve, so too do ideas regarding what constitutes good treatment and decision-making in transgender healthcare. Against this background, differing care models arose, including the 'Standards of Care' and the so-called 'Informed Consent Model'. In these care models, ethical notions and principles such as 'decision-making' and 'autonomy' are often referred to, but left unsubstantiated. This not only transpires into the consultation room where stakeholders are confronted with many different ethical challenges in decision-making, but also hampers a more explicit discussion of what good decision-making in transgender medicine should be comprised of. The aim of this paper is to make explicit the conceptual and normative assumptions regarding decision-making and client autonomy underpinning the 'Standards of Care' and 'Informed Consent Model' currently used in transgender care. Furthermore, we illustrate how this elucidation aids in better understanding stakeholders' ethical challenges related to decision-making. Our ethical analysis lays bare how distinct normative ambiguities in both care models influence decision-making in practice and how foregrounding one normative model for decision-making is no moral panacea. We suggest that the first steps towards good decision-making in gender-affirming medical care are the acknowledgement of its inherent normative and moral dimensions and a shared, dialogical approach towards the decision-making process.

New horizons in trans and non-binary health care: Bridging identity affirmation with chronicity management in sexual and reproductive services

BACKGROUND

Transgender and non-binary people experience erasure, stigma, and discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care. Previous research shows worse sexual and reproductive health outcomes and higher rates of chronicity for trans and non-binary populations as compared to cisgender populations. Historically such outcomes have been framed as separate issues.

AIMS

To describe methodological approaches for exploring gaps in the sexual and reproductive health care of transgender and non-binary people, and explore intersections between chronic disease management and gender-affirming care.

METHODS

We critically reviewed methods for studying sexual and reproductive care and chronic condition management among trans and non-binary populations. We focus on two themes: unmet needs and response strategies.

RESULTS

We summarize findings and opportunities in existing research about service needs in trans and non-binary care. Key barriers to effective sexual and reproductive care for trans and non-binary people include persistent medical myths about trans people and bodies, siloization of different domains of health and associated services, lack of research on how chronic disease treatments interact with transition related care, and lack of active communication between providers and patients about individual care needs and goals.

DISCUSSION

We recommend methodologically diverse research with trans and non-binary populations capturing: (1) erasure, stigma, and discrimination in sexual and reproductive health care settings; (2) individual, interpersonal, and structural factors catalyzing chronicity; and (3) the impact of sexual and reproductive health disparities on chronic disease outcomes.

Dropdown rights: Categorizing transgender discrimination in healthcare technologies

This study analyzes how U.S. healthcare organizations implemented legal requirements to treat patients in a manner consistent with their gender identity under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. The ways that healthcare organizations determine gender and track complaints constitute socio-technical systems for compliance, and they shape what discrimination protections look like on the ground. We interviewed grievance handlers about how they use information technologies to process possible civil rights claims from patients and argue that their work demobilizes and erases civil rights, especially claims such as transgender harassment. Mobilized physician-led implementation groups, by contrast, enacted a version of gender identity recognition by tracking identities and bodies in electronic medical records and material objects such as specimen labels. Default structures-the dropdown menus of healthcare software-both shape and are shaped by professional norms, financial incentives, and conceptions of justice and deservingness. These socio-technical structures allow conflicting stories of transgender rights to continue on in different parts of the healthcare organization, making it difficult for law to transform healthcare delivery.

Health and Health Care of Sexual and Gender Minorities

Research on the social dimensions of health and health care among sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) has grown rapidly in the last two decades. However, a comprehensive review of the extant interdisciplinary scholarship on SGM health has yet to be written. In response, we offer a synthesis of recent scholarship. We discuss major empirical findings and theoretical implications of health care utilization, barriers to care, health behaviors, and health outcomes, which demonstrate how SGMs continue to experience structural- and interactional-level inequalities across health and medicine. Within this synthesis, we also consider the conceptual and methodological limitations that continue to beleaguer the field and offer suggestions for several promising directions for future research and theory building. SGM health bridges the scholarly interests in social and health sciences and contributes to broader sociological concerns regarding the persistence of sexuality- and gender-based inequalities.