Measuring Sex, Gender, and Sexual Orientation in National Disease Surveillance Systems: A Pilot Study

A scoping review of the structuring of questions about sexual orientation and gender identity

The purpose of this scoping review is to map the extent of the current research on how to best structure questions asking respondents to self-identify their sexual orientation and gender identity and to ascertain what further issues about measurement need to be explored. Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews, 52 articles describing primary research about how to structure sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions, published in the years 2000-2021, were identified and analyzed. The domain of sexuality being asked about (e.g., self-label vs. behavior) needs to be clarified, and gender identity should be asked through a multipart item differentiating current identity from the sex assigned at birth. The terms used in the response options should be defined and may vary based on the study population or context. Contrary to expectations given the wide range of question formats currently being used in the field, there is considerable consensus around the basic tenets for structuring questions designed to assess SOGI dimensions.

Operationalizing and analyzing 2-step gender identity questions: Methodological and ethical considerations

OBJECTIVE

Two-step questions to assess gender identity are recommended for optimizing care delivery for gender-diverse individuals. As gender identity fields are increasingly integrated into electronic health records, guidance is needed on how to analyze these data. The goal of this study was to assess potential approaches for analyzing 2-step gender identity questions and the impact of each on suicidal ideation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A regional Youth Risk Behavior Survey in one Northeastern school district used a 2-step question to assess gender identity. Three gender measurement strategies (GMSs) were used to operationalize gender identity, (1) combining all gender-diverse youth (GDY) into one category, (2) grouping GDY based on sex assigned at birth, and (3) categorizing GDY based on binary and nonbinary identities. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to compare odds of suicidal ideation between gender identity categories for each GMS.

RESULTS

Of the 3010 participants, 8.3% were GDY. Subcategories of GDY had significantly higher odds (odds ratio range, 1.6-2.9) of suicidal ideation than cisgender girls regardless of GMS, while every category of GDY had significantly higher odds (odds ratio range, 2.1-5.0) of suicidal ideation than cisgender boys.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of clinical informatics has an opportunity to incorporate inclusive items like the 2-step gender identity question into electronic health records to optimize care and strengthen clinical research. Analysis of the 2-step gender identity question impacts study results and interpretation. Attention to how data about GDY are captured will support for more nuanced, tailored analyses that better reflect unique experiences within this population.