Development of a computable phenotype to identify a transgender sample for health research purposes: a feasibility study in a large linked provincial healthcare administrative cohort in British Columbia, Canada

Integrating equity frameworks into surgical quality improvement and health administrative databases: A narrative review

Ensuring safe, timely, and effective surgery is critical for high-quality healthcare and is the goal of surgical quality monitoring systems. At the heart of these systems are health administrative databases which house patient clinico-demographic information, healthcare processes and outcomes. Through analysis of monitoring systems outputs, we can identify gaps within healthcare delivery, patient experience, and surgical outcomes. However, gaps in our healthcare can only be measured by the variables we collect. Equity stratifiers are sociodemographic descriptors that can identify patient populations who experience differences in health and healthcare that may be considered unjust or unfair. They include age, education, gender, geographic location, income, Indigenous identity, racialized group, and sex at birth. These equity stratifiers represent measurable components of the social determinants of health housed within health administrative databases and allow for standardized analysis and reporting of health inequity. However, not all databases collect these stratifiers - making granular analysis of patient subgroups who may experience health inequity impossible to measure. Moreover, in databases that do collect this information, a wide range in the classification systems used makes for comparisons across jurisdictions challenging. The focus of this narrative review will be to apply the principles of the equity stratifier framework to examine what measures are collected in surgical quality improvement databases, cancer monitoring systems and provincial/state health administrative databases in the United States of America and Canada. The goal of this narrative review is to 1) inform researchers, surgeons, and policymakers of the current landscape of social variables collected within common health administrative databases. 2) Outline the pros and cons of the current collection system. 3) Issue a call to action for policymakers to incorporate health equity frameworks into the collection and reporting of data.

Using focus groups to inform a peer health navigator service for people who are transgender and gender diverse in Saskatchewan, Canada

BACKGROUND

This study investigated healthcare access and quality for people who are transgender and gender-diverse (PTGD) in Saskatchewan (SK), Canada, to inform a larger project that was piloting two peer health navigators for PTGD.

METHODS

Two online focus groups were held. Nineteen participants were recruited to represent a broad range in age, gender and location in SK. Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

The core theme that was identified was participants' desire for culturally safe healthcare. This core theme had two component themes: (1) systemic healthcare factors and (2) individual healthcare provider (HCP) factors. The healthcare system primarily acted as a barrier to culturally safe healthcare. HCPs could be either barriers or facilitators of culturally safe care; however, negative experiences outweighed positive ones.

CONCLUSIONS

PTGD in SK face discrimination, with delays and barriers to care at all levels of the healthcare system. Peer health navigators can address some of these discrepancies; however, greater support is required for PTGD to be able to access culturally safe healthcare.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

People with lived experience/PTGD were involved in all stages of this project. They were included on the team as community researchers and co-developed the research project, conducted the focus groups, participated in the analyses and are co-authors. As well, both navigators and all the participants in the focus groups were also PTGD.

Identifying a Cohort of People Who Are Transgender and Gender-Diverse Within Saskatchewan's Administrative Health Databases

This was a retrospective cohort study. Algorithms were developed to identify a cohort of people who were trans and gender diverse (PTGD) among provincial-level administrative health databases (physician, hospital, emergency department, and pharmacy) from April 1, 2012 to September 30, 2020. Then, healthcare usage was compared between the identified cohort and the general population. There were 6466 unique individuals identified in the cohort, out of a total population of 1.2 million Saskatchewan residents (~0.5%). They had a mean age of 42.5 (SD 17.7) years. 1946 (30.1%) had a female sex marker and 4560 (69.9%) had a male sex marker, which may not indicate their lived gender. The cohort had increased healthcare usage 2 years prior to their index date, compared to the general population, which continued to rise to 1 year past their index date across physician, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. The results for drugs were mixed. The percentage of PTGD identified in Saskatchewan was comparable to other studies. Healthcare utilization among the cohort was higher than the general population. Further research could use external data sources to validate and improve the cohort identification methods. The large majority of individuals with a male sex marker deserves further investigation.

Improving access for and experience of transgender and non-binary patients in clinical research: Insights from a transgender patient focus group and targeted literature reviews

INTRODUCTION

The transgender and non-binary communities make up a significant, growing proportion of the population, but, to date, few clinical trials report including transgender and non-binary individuals.

METHODS

As part of a mixed-method approach, multiple literature searches for articles published from January 2018 to July 2022 and a Patient Advisory Council (a semi-structured patient focus group) meeting were conducted to identify challenges faced by the transgender and non-binary communities when accessing healthcare and participating in clinical research. A set of guidelines to promote inclusivity in clinical research was developed using these findings.

RESULTS

During this time period, only 107 (0.08%) of 141,661 published articles of clinical trials reported participation of transgender or non-binary patients. A targeted search identified only 48 articles reporting specific barriers to inclusion in clinical research, while an expanded search identified 290 articles reporting barriers to healthcare access for transgender and non-binary patients. Several key considerations to promote study inclusivity emerged from the literature searches and Patient Advisory Council: adjust clinical protocols, informed consent documents, and data collection forms to distinguish sex assigned at birth from gender identity; involve members of the transgender and non-binary communities in research whenever possible; provide communication training to personnel involved in clinical research; and maximize accessibility for potential participants.

CONCLUSION

Future research on investigational drug dosing and drug interactions in transgender and non-binary patients, along with regulatory guidance, are recommended to ensure clinical trials' processes, designs, systems, and technologies are transgender and non-binary patient-friendly, inclusive, and welcoming.

Patterns of gender identity data within electronic health record databases can be used as a tool for identifying and estimating the prevalence of gender-expansive people

Objective

Electronic health records (EHRs) within the United States increasingly include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) fields. We assess how well SOGI fields, along with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and medication records, identify gender-expansive patients.

Materials and Methods

The study used a data set of all patients that had in-person inpatient or outpatient encounters at an academic medical center in a rural state between December 1, 2018 and February 17, 2022. Chart review was performed for all patients meeting at least one of the following criteria: differences between legal sex, sex assigned at birth, and gender identity (excluding blank fields) in the EHR SOGI fields; ICD-10 codes related to gender dysphoria or unspecified endocrine disorder; prescription for estradiol or testosterone suggesting use of gender-affirming hormones.

Results

Out of 123 441 total unique patients with in-person encounters, we identified a total of 2236 patients identifying as gender-expansive, with 1506 taking gender-affirming hormones. SOGI field differences or ICD-10 codes related to gender dysphoria or both were found in 2219 of 2236 (99.2%) patients who identify as gender-expansive, and 1500 of 1506 (99.6%) taking gender-affirming hormones. For the gender-expansive population, assigned female at birth was more common in the 12-29 year age range, while assigned male at birth was more common for those 40 years and older.

Conclusions

SOGI fields and ICD-10 codes identify a high percentage of gender-expansive patients at an academic medical center.