Co-producing knowledge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) health-care inequalities via rapid reviews of grey literature in 27 EU Member States

A qualitative exploration of gynaecological healthcare experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer people assigned female at birth

BACKGROUND

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual/aromantic (LGBTQA+) people, assigned female at birth (AFAB), experience disproportionately poorer gynaecological healthcare outcomes compared to their cisgender, heterosexual peers. The barriers to gynaecological care remain poorly understood. In a step toward bridging this gap, the current study explored the lived gynaecological healthcare experiences of Australian LGBTQA+ AFAB people and the barriers they experience in accessing care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 LGBTQA+ AFAB people. An inductive thematic qualitative design was used to explore the lived experiences and identify themes associated with the reported experiences.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified seven themes related to experiences in accessing gynaecological healthcare, including discrimination, fear, perceived provider or cultural incompetency, accessibility, and gender identity. Several sub-themes were also identified such as refusal of care, microaggression, misgendering, and patient as educator.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants suggested that barriers to care could be alleviated by the integration of LGBTQA+ specific healthcare training into the university-level medical curriculum and professional development programs that address cultural competency and inclusive healthcare. These preliminary findings inform the necessity for the development of evidence-based practice guidelines that specifically address the unique and diverse needs of the LGBTQA+ AFAB population.

Why do transgender individuals experience discrimination in healthcare and thereby limited access to healthcare? An interview study exploring the perspective of German transgender individuals

BACKGROUND

Transgender individuals experience limited access to healthcare. This results not least from experiences of discrimination to which they are exposed in the health system. These contribute to transgender individuals having poorer health than cis individuals, i.e. individuals whose sex assigned at birth is in line with their gender identity. It is an ethical duty to take effective measures to minimize inequalities in medical care. At best, such measures should also be assessed as appropriate from the perspective of those affected in order to be accepted and thus effective. It is therefore important to know whether measures touch on the subjectively assumed reasons for experiences of discrimination. Hence, to be able to take appropriate measures, it is important to identify the reasons that transgender individuals see as causal for their experiences of discrimination in healthcare.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 German transgender individuals and asked them about their own experiences of discrimination in healthcare and their assumptions on the reasons for discrimination. We analyzed the responses using the method of structured qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

13 transgender individuals reported experiences of discrimination in healthcare. These emanated from different professional groups and took place in trans-specific as well as general medical settings. We were able to identify a total of 12 reasons that transgender individuals see as causal for their experiences of discrimination: (1) internalized trans-hostility and "protection" of cis individuals, (2) lack of knowledge/uncertainties regarding transition, (3) "protection" of a binary worldview, (4) binary worldview in medicine, (5) structural deficits, (6) asymmetric interactions with specialists, (7) current political debate, (8) view of transgender individuals as a "burden for society", (9) objectification, (10) homophobia, (11) misogyny/androcentrism and (12) discrimination as reaction to discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

German transgender individuals have a very differentiated picture regarding their subjective reasons for experiencing discrimination in healthcare. Overall, disrespect regarding gender identity and a confrontation with foreignness seems to be seen as the decisive factor. Thus, it is not enough to focus only on measures that aim to remedy the information deficit on the part of medical providers. Measures must be taken that can create a granting and respectful attitude towards transgender individuals.

A cross-sectional study of the relationship between depression status, health care coverage, and sexual orientation

Health care coverage is an important factor in receipt of behavioral healthcare. This study uses data from the New York City Community Health Survey to examine how sexual minority status impacts the relationship between depression status and having health care coverage. Approximately 10% of the sample (n = 9571; 47% 45+ years old; 35% White Non-Hispanic; 7% sexual minority) reported probable depression and low health care coverage. Compared to heterosexual participants, a greater proportion of sexual minority participants had low health care coverage (17% vs. 9%) and probable depression (19% vs. 9%). Logistic regression examining the association between probable depression status and health care coverage showed that those with probable depression have odds of low health care coverage that are were 3.08 times those who did not have probable depression; this relationship was not modified by sexual orientation. Continued research to understand the interplay of health care coverage, mental health, and sexual orientation is needed.

L’universalisme proportionné, un outil pour améliorer la santé des minorités LGBTI

The design of health policies must be guided by the imperative of sex and gender inclusiveness in order to advance the health of all. Classically conceived from the idea of universalism, the French conception of health policies is however often categorical when it comes to questions linked to sex and gender, even though health topics are rarely specificaccount. This article examines this tension in the design of public policies that can improve the health of sexual and gender minorities, between "neutral" or "universal" policies and categorical, "sexed" or "gendered" policies. The report Sex, Gender and Health published by the HAS in 2020 bears this conviction that concerning sex, gender and health, the principle of proportionate universalism is the most suitable for improving the health of all, without prejudice but also without privilege, nor for the general population, nor for the minorities that compose it. The authors question the design of public health policies with regard to sexual and gender minorities, seeking the relation between the preservation of the general interest and special interests. It is therefore a question of using the concepts of "sex" and "gender" as levers for improving the health of all, and not as tools for defining categorical policies.

Collecter des données pour la santé des populations LGBTI : pourquoi, comment, avec qui ?

INTRODUCTION

Data collection and its appropriate exploitation contributes to the detection of differences in needs or health outcomes between different sub-groups of the population. These enable improvements in knowledge, and then treatment and health policies.

METHOD

Our study is part of a prospective analysis of the health and social support system. Several issues were defined, linked to sex, gender and health relationships. One of them was "when and how the collection of sexed data about health could contribute to improve population health?". Particular issues were identified regarding LGBTI minorities. A narrative review was conducted, centered on this subject. The authors' own expertise and testimonials from users of the health system were also used.

RESULTS

First, the analysis highlighted the lack of available data on the health of LGBTI people, and more broadly the lack of inclusiveness of sexed/gendered data collected from the general population. Then, three work leads were identified: (1) the tension between the benefits and the risks of having data on minorities (at the individual and collective level), (2) particular questions asked by Big data, and (3) the methodological difficulties to solve. For each of these work leads, the authors lay the foundations for a constructive reflection in order to encourage further work.

DISCUSSION

Authors invite the actors, in concertation with the involved communities (and perhaps on their own initiative) to enter now into this reflection in order to move it forward and to promote health together.

Mental health for LGBTQI people: a policies' review

The mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexual (LGBTQI) individuals is significantly influenced by many factors such as difficulties in coming-out, poor acceptance, isolation and discrimination as well as minority-related stress. LGBTQI individuals, in fact, show a significant higher risk of mental health conditions, substance- use disorders and suicide. In addition, mental health services access may be difficult for personal and social barriers as well as a lack of adequate and specific mental health support. This review aims to assess and describe international policies, guidelines, position statements and recommendations regarding the promotion and protection of mental health rights for LGBTQI people. The search has been focussed on peer-reviewed papers, Governmental and Mental Health Association- Guidelines and Position Statements, Health Agencies - Guidelines and Position Statements (with a specific focus on mental health), LGBTQI Alliances and Foundations Publishing (with a specific focus on mental health). In addition, relevant international initiatives, and projects in the field of LGBTQI mental health will be described.

Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.

METHODS

We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.

RESULTS

We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.

Inside the doctor's office. Talking about intersex with Italian health professionals

This article explores how health professionals in Italy understand variations of sex characteristics (VSC), also referred to as intersex and/or disorders of sex development (DSD). With estimates of VSC frequency ranging from 0.018% to 1.7%, only a handful of highly specialised medical doctors are considered DSD experts. When addressing the daily health management of children and families who do not live near specialist DSD centres, these experts may refer individuals to the nearest health professional that Italian health services provides, opening up questions regarding how these professionals might act and react when faced with VSC. In this analysis of interview data from 65 Italian general practitioners, paediatricians and psychologists, we address two themes. The first theme discusses participants' previous experiences and case management, with a focus on social, medical and gender biases. The second theme examines health professionals' opinions and perspectives on ongoing conflicts concerning current best care practices. Our results highlight health professionals' cultural and gendered biases, confirming the need to develop specific professional training, guidelines and policies to improve the healthcare of people with VSC.

A Systematic Review of the Health and Healthcare Inequalities for People with Intersex Variance

Extensive research documents the health inequalities LGBTI people experience, however far less is known for people with intersex variation. This paper presents a review of intersex health and healthcare inequalities by evaluating research published from 2012 to 2019. In total 9181 citations were identified with 74 records screened of which 16 were included. A synthesis of results spans nine quantitative, five qualitative and two narrative reviews. Literature was searched in Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycInfo and CINAHL. People with intersex variance experience a higher incidence of anxiety, depression and psychological distress compared to the general population linked to stigma and discrimination. Progressive healthcare treatment, including support to question normative binaries of sex and gender, aids understand of somatic intersex variance and non-binary gender identity, especially when invasive treatment options are avoided or delayed until individuals are able to self-identify or provide consent to treatment. Findings support rethinking sex and gender to reflect greater diversity within a more nuanced sex-gender spectrum, although gaps in research remain around the general health profile and the healthcare experiences of people with intersex variance. More large-scale research is needed, co-produced with peers who have lived experience of intersex variation to ensure policy, education and healthcare advances with greater inclusivity and ethical accountability.

Training healthcare professionals in LGBTI cultural competencies: Exploratory findings from the Health4LGBTI pilot project

OBJECTIVES

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people experience health inequalities and barriers to accessing healthcare at a greater rate than the general population. This paper aims to present the Health4LGBTI training course for healthcare workers and the results of its pilot implementation.

METHODS

Funded by the European Parliament, the training course was developed by a multidisciplinary team including LGBTI organisations as part of the Health4LGBTI Project. 110 healthcare professionals from diverse medical fields attended the pilot training in six European Member States. Knowledge and attitudes were compared on the basis of a pre-post evaluation design utilising an ad hoc questionnaire.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores increased after the training, irrespective of age and sexual orientation of participants. Attitudes scores generally improved, particularly in terms of inclusivity and a greater acknowledgement of LGBTI health needs and self-competence.

CONCLUSION

The Health4LGBTI training course is both feasible and effective in training healthcare professionals and support staff to improve cultural competence and thereby promoting inclusive healthcare practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The Health4LGBTI training course can be implemented in different healthcare contexts. Piloting of the course provided an opportunity for healthcare professionals and for support staff to improve their knowledge of, and attitudes towards, LGBTI people.

Co-producing knowledge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) health-care inequalities via rapid reviews of grey literature in 27 EU Member States

Background

The health inequalities experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people are well documented with several reviews of global research summarizing key inequalities. These reviews also show how the health‐care needs of LGBTI people are often poorly understood whilst suggesting that targeted initiatives to reduce inequalities should involve LGBTI people.

Objectives

To determine what is known about the health‐care inequalities faced by LGBTI people? What are the barriers faced by LGBTI people whilst accessing health care, and health professionals when providing care? What examples of promising practice exist?

Design

Rapid reviews of grey literature were co‐produced with LGBTI people in 27 countries followed by a thematic analysis and synthesis across all data sets. The review included grey literature from each country that might not otherwise be accessible due to language barriers.

Main results

Rapid reviews showed that LGBTI people faced various inequalities and barriers whilst accessing health care. Where heterosexuality, binary gender and assumed male/female sex characteristics were upheld as the norm, and where LGBTI people differed from these norms, discrimination could result. In consultations where LGBTI people feared discrimination and did not disclose their LGBTI status, health professionals lacked the information required for appropriate assessments.

Conclusion

With greater understanding of sexual orientation (LGB people), gender identity (trans people) and sex characteristics (intersex people), combined with access to contemporary knowledge and training, health professionals can work in collaboration with researchers, policymakers and LGBTI people to develop systems that are better attuned to the needs of all service users.