Demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and healthcare experiences of 6333 trans and non-binary adults in England: nationally representative evidence from the 2021 GP Patient Survey

Autistic and transgender/gender diverse people's experiences of health and healthcare

BACKGROUND

Autistic people and transgender/gender diverse people experience poorer healthcare experiences and greater risk of diagnosed, suspected, and assessment recommended health conditions, compared to non-autistic and cisgender individuals, respectively. Despite this, there is a paucity of studies on the healthcare experiences and health outcomes of transgender/gender diverse autistic individuals.

METHODS

We compared the healthcare experiences and health outcomes of cisgender autistic (n = 1094), transgender/gender diverse autistic (n = 174), and cisgender non-autistic adults (n = 1295) via an anonymous, self-report survey. All individuals whose sex assigned at birth did not match their current gender identity were categorized as transgender/gender diverse; this was possible to determine, as the survey asked about sex assigned at birth and gender in separate questions. Unfortunately, n = 57 transgender/gender diverse non-autistic participants were excluded from these analyses a priori, due to low power. Unadjusted and adjusted binomial logistic regression models with FDR correction were employed to assess healthcare experiences and rates of co-occurring mental and physical health conditions.

RESULTS

Both transgender/gender diverse and cisgender autistic adults had higher rates of all health conditions (including conditions that are formally diagnosed, suspected, or recommended for assessment), compared to cisgender non-autistic adults. Transgender/gender diverse autistic adults were 2.3 times more likely to report a physical health condition, 10.9 times more likely to report a mental health condition, and 5.8 times more likely to report self-harm than cisgender non-autistic adults. Both autistic groups also reported significantly poorer healthcare experiences across 50/51 items.

LIMITATIONS

These data were not originally collected to understand the experiences of transgender/gender diverse individuals. In addition, our recruitment strategies, use of a convenience sampling method, and the use of a self-report survey limit the generalizability of the study. As our sample was biased towards white individuals, UK residents, relatively highly educated individuals, those assigned female at birth, and those who currently identify as female, our findings may be less applicable to individuals of differing demographics. Finally, the present study does not include information on the experiences of transgender/gender diverse non-autistic people.

CONCLUSIONS

Autistic people have poorer self-reported health and healthcare; however, being gender diverse is associated with further risk for certain adverse experiences and outcomes. Future research on the health and healthcare experiences of transgender/gender diverse autistic people is urgently needed. In particular, forthcoming studies in this area should aim to recruit large-scale and representative studies and should compare the experiences of transgender/gender diverse autistic people to those of transgender/gender diverse non-autistic people. Greater recognition of challenges and reasonable adjustments are essential for people with marginalized, intersectional identities in clinical practice.

Mental Health Disparities by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the All of Us Research Program

Importance

Limited research explores mental health disparities between individuals in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations and cisgender heterosexual (non-SGM) populations using national-level data.

Objective

To explore mental health disparities between SGM and non-SGM populations across sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and gender identity within the All of Us Research Program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used survey data and linked electronic health records of eligible All of Us Research Program participants from May 31, 2017, to June 30, 2022.

Exposure

Self-identified SGM status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of common mental health conditions identified from linked electronic health records. Logistic regression adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, educational level, income, employment status, and geographic region was used to assess the association between SGM status and mental health conditions.

Results

Among 413 457 participants, 269 947 (65.3%) were included in the analysis (median age, 59 [IQR, 43-70] years), with 22 189 (8.2%) self-identified as SGM. Men with cisgender sexual minority identity had higher odds of bipolar disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.70-2.56) compared with cisgender heterosexual men. Women with cisgender sexual minority identity had higher odds of bipolar disorder (AOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.95-2.25) compared with cisgender heterosexual women. Gender diverse people assigned female sex at birth had higher odds of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with both cisgender heterosexual men (AOR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.99-4.50) and cisgender heterosexual women (AOR, 2.77; 95% CI, 2.26-3.40). Gender diverse individuals assigned male sex at birth had higher odds of bipolar disorder (AOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.66-3.33) compared with cisgender heterosexual men and higher odds of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.48-3.23) compared with cisgender heterosexual women. Transgender men had higher odds of depression (AOR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.80-2.49) compared with cisgender heterosexual men, while transgender women had higher odds of any personality disorder (AOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.84-3.99) compared with cisgender heterosexual women.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of participants in the All of Us Research Program, there were significant mental health disparities between participants in SGM and non-SGM groups. These findings underscore the need for tailored mental health interventions to improve the well-being of SGM populations, while noting that the associations do not imply causality but reflect the stigma and minority stress experienced by these individuals.

Research methods at the intersection of gender diversity and autism: A scoping review

LAY ABSTRACT

Research has increasingly focused on the intersection between gender diversity and autism. To better understand this literature, this scoping review systematically searched five databases for peer-reviewed literature on gender diversity and autism published between 2018 and 2023. Included studies (N = 84) were of English language, featured original qualitative or quantitative findings, and examined a psychosocial connection between autism and gender spectra variables. Most studies focused on measuring prevalence of autism among gender-diverse individuals. While the overall study rigor was acceptable, weaknesses in measurement, sample selection, and definition of key terms were noted. Promisingly, studies in this area appear to be shifting away from a pathologizing lens and towards research methods that engage in meaningful collaboration with the autistic, gender-diverse community to investigate how to best enhance the quality of life and wellbeing of this population.

Towards inclusive healthcare: evaluating knowledge, confidence and awareness of LGBTQ + health among Internal Medicine Trainees in London

BACKGROUND

Patients from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus (LGBTQ +) community face various health inequalities and report poor healthcare experiences. Little is known about how knowledgeable and confident UK doctors are around LGBTQ + health, and previous research demonstrates that UK medical schools rarely deliver teaching in this area. This research evaluated the level of knowledge, awareness and confidence of LGBTQ + health among Internal Medical Trainees (IMTs) in London.

METHODS

London IMTs were invited to complete an online questionnaire evaluating knowledge, awareness and confidence in LGBTQ + health. Stratified analysis of results by demographics was performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifteen surveys were analysed from 796 eligible trainees (40%). Confidence in caring for LGBTQ + patients was variable. Confidence in discussing gender identity was lower than for sexual orientation. Knowledge of health issues affecting LGBTQ + patients varied. Most participants had never received training on LGBTQ + health at undergraduate (n = 201, 64%) or postgraduate level (n = 252, 80%), but the majority of participants felt that training would be useful (n = 233, 74%). Stratified analysis revealed that IMTs who received previous LGBTQ + teaching at undergraduate or postgraduate level were considerably more confident discussing sexual orientation with patients, compared to those who received no previous teaching.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for education on LGBTQ + health, given the varied levels of knowledge and confidence identified. A significant majority of IMTs in London have never received teaching on LGBTQ + health, although there exists a strong desire for this. LGBTQ + health topics should be integrated into undergraduate and postgraduate training and examinations for IMTs. This would support IMTs in delivering high quality and inclusive care for all patients, particularly those of sexual orientation and gender identity minorities. There are relatively few published studies exploring competency in LGBTQ + health among doctors, and this is the first among UK Internal Medicine Trainees.

Using Routine Data to Improve Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

The collection of sexual orientation in routine data, generated either from contacts with health services or in infrastructure data resources designed and collected for policy and research, has improved substantially in the United Kingdom in the last decade. Inclusive measures of gender and transgender status are now also beginning to be collected. This viewpoint considers current data collections, and their strengths and limitations, including accessing data, sample size, measures of sexual orientation and gender, measures of health outcomes, and longitudinal follow-up. The available data are considered within both sociopolitical and biomedical models of health for individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or of other identities including nonbinary (LGBTQ+). Although most individual data sets have some methodological limitations, when put together, there is now a real depth of routine data for LGBTQ+ health research. This paper aims to provide a framework for how these data can be used to improve health and health care outcomes. Four practical analysis approaches are introduced-descriptive epidemiology, risk prediction, intervention development, and impact evaluation-and are discussed as frameworks for translating data into research with the potential to improve health.

Regional and Local Inequalities in Disability Status by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: A Cross-Sectional Ecological Analysis of the 2021 Census of England and Wales

Purpose

To examine regional differences in disability status by sexual orientation and gender identity and to explore local factors that are associated with levels of inequalities for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other sexual orientations (LGB+) or transgender.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional ecological analysis of 2021 Census data from England and Wales. The main outcome variable was disability status. The main explanatory variables were sexual orientation and gender identity. Weighed linear regression was used to examine differences in disability status by sexual orientation (LGB+ vs. heterosexual) and gender identity (transgender vs. cisgender). The magnitude of between-group differences was explored by region and, in England, local authority-level urbanization and socioeconomic deprivation.

Results

Among 48.5 million census respondents within 331 local authority districts (LADs) across England and Wales, LGB+ and transgender groups were more likely to report having a disability than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Inequalities were prevalent across regions of England and Wales, but were smallest in the Greater London area and largest in the southwest of England. Inequalities were also larger within English LADs that were relatively less urbanized and relatively more socioeconomically deprived.

Conclusions

This study identified disparities in disability status by sexual orientation and gender identity, which varied by region and local socioeconomic deprivation and urbanization. More research is needed to better understand how to support disabled LGBT+ people, especially those in less urbanized and more socioeconomically deprived areas.

Gender-related self-reported mental health inequalities in primary care in England: a cross-sectional analysis using the GP Patient Survey

BACKGROUND

Transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse people face discrimination and barriers to accessing health care. Existing evidence suggests higher rates of mental health conditions among these groups compared with binary and cisgender groups. However, information is limited by poor gender recording in health records and surveys. We aimed to provide the first national estimates of gender-related inequalities in self-reported mental health conditions and mental health support across 15 gender groups in England.

METHODS

We used changes to the 2021 and 2022 nationally representative cross-sectional English General Pracitioner (GP) Patient Surveys and used age-adjusted logistic regression to predict probabilities of two outcomes: first, self-reporting a mental health condition and second, self-reporting unmet mental health needs. We report results for 15 exposure groups: five gender groups (female, male, non-binary, prefer to self-describe, and prefer not to say), within three cisgender or transgender identity groups (cisgender, transgender, or prefer not to say). We explored potential mediation by adding covariates.

FINDINGS

Of the 1 520 457 respondents in the estimation sample, 861 017 (51·4%) were female, 645 300 (47·4%) were male, 2600 (0·3%) were non-binary, 2277 (0·2%) self-described their gender, and 9263 (0·7%) preferred not to state their gender. 1 499 852 (98·3%) respondents were cisgender, 7994 (0·7%) were transgender, and 12 611 (1·0%) preferred not to say their cisgender or transgender identity. We found wide gender-related inequalities in the probability of self-reporting a mental health condition, with the highest probabilities among non-binary patients who were transgender (47·21% [95% CI 42·86-51·60]) or preferred not to say their cisgender or transgender identity (32·90% [26·50-40·00]), and among transgender patients who self-described their gender (35·03% [27·39-43·53]). With the exception of non-binary patients in each case, probabilities were lowest among cisgender patient groups (ranging from male at 8·80% [8·69-8·92] to female at 11·97% [11·86-12·07]) and patients who preferred not to say their cisgender or transgender identity (ranging from female 7·15% [6·06-8·42] to prefer to self-describe 10·37% [7·13-14·86]). Inequalities in other health conditions and socioeconomic factors might mediate some of these inequalities. Probabilities of self-reported unmet mental health needs were lowest among cisgender male (15·55% [15·33-15·76]) and female (15·93% [15·76-16·10]) patients with increased probabilities among all other groups, ranging from 19·95% (17·57-22·57) in transgender male patients to 28·64% (26·23-31·17) among patients who preferred not to say their gender or their cisgender or transgender identity. Inequalities in interactions with health-care professionals may mediate much of these inequalities.

INTERPRETATION

Together with existing evidence, our findings showed large gender-related inequalities in self-reported mental health outcomes in England. Given the existence of self-reported unmet mental health needs, we suggest that better health care system inclusivity and health-care professional training are needed, alongside broader improvements in the social and legal environment for transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse people.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

COVID-19 infection and vaccination uptake in men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men in the UK: analyses of a large, online community cross-sectional survey (RiiSH-COVID) undertaken November-December 2021

BACKGROUND

Men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by health conditions associated with increased risk of severe illness due to COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey of men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men in the UK recruited via social networking and dating applications from 22 November-12 December 2021. Eligible participants included self-identifying men, transgender women, or gender-diverse individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB), aged ≥ 16, who were UK residents, and self-reported having had sex with an individual AMAB in the last year. We calculated self-reported COVID-19 test-positivity, proportion reporting long COVID, and COVID-19 vaccination uptake anytime from pandemic start to survey completion (November/December 2021). Logistic regression was used to assess sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioural characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) test positivity and complete vaccination (≥ 2 vaccine doses).

RESULTS

Among 1,039 participants (88.1% white, median age 41 years [interquartile range: 31-51]), 18.6% (95% CI: 16.3%-21.1%) reported COVID-19 test positivity, 8.3% (95% CI: 6.7%-10.1%) long COVID, and 94.5% (95% CI: 93.3%-96.1%) complete COVID-19 vaccination through late 2021. In multivariable models, COVID-19 test positivity was associated with UK country of residence (aOR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.26-3.92], England vs outside England) and employment (aOR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.01-2.38], current employment vs not employed). Complete COVID-19 vaccination was associated with age (aOR: 1.04 [95% CI: 1.01-1.06], per increasing year), gender (aOR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.09-0.72], gender minority vs cisgender), education (aOR: 2.11 [95% CI: 1.12-3.98], degree-level or higher vs below degree-level), employment (aOR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.08-3.94], current employment vs not employed), relationship status (aOR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.25-1.00], single vs in a relationship), COVID-19 infection history (aOR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.25-0.88], test positivity or self-perceived infection vs no history), known HPV vaccination (aOR: 3.32 [95% CI: 1.43-7.75]), and low self-worth (aOR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.15-0.54]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this community sample, COVID-19 vaccine uptake was high overall, though lower among younger age-groups, gender minorities, and those with poorer well-being. Efforts are needed to limit COVID-19 related exacerbation of health inequalities in groups who already experience a greater burden of poor health relative to other men who have sex with men.