scholarly journals Do Ask, Do Tell: High Levels of Acceptability by Patients of Routine Collection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Four Diverse American Community Health Centers

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e107104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Cahill ◽  
Robbie Singal ◽  
Chris Grasso ◽  
Dana King ◽  
Kenneth Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Centers ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
And Gender

scholarly journals Patient-Centered Practices for Engaging Transgender and Gender Diverse Patients in Clinical Research Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Asquith ◽  
Lauren Sava ◽  
Alexander B. Harris ◽  
Asa E. Radix ◽  
Dana J. Pardee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Centers ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Gender Diverse ◽  
And Gender

Abstract Background: The purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.Method: Between September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N=28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.Results: Participants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) male, 3 (10.7%) female, 8 (28.6%) transgender male, 10 (35.7%) transgender female, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a ‘cisgender lens”, distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.Conclusion: Though similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.

City-Level Structural Stigma and Patient Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection at US Health Centers, 2018

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e5
Author(s):  
Anthony N. Almazan ◽  
Dana King ◽  
Chris Grasso ◽  
Sean Cahill ◽  
Micah Lattanner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Orientation Data ◽  
Gender Minority ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minority ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Relationship

Objectives. To examine the relationship between city-level structural stigma pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and completeness of patient SOGI data collection at US federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Methods. We used the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index to quantify city-level structural stigma against sexual and gender minority people in 506 US cities across 49 states. We ascertained the completeness of SOGI data collection at FQHCs from the 2018 Uniform Data System, which describes FQHC patient demographics and service utilization. We included FQHCs in cities captured by the structural stigma index in multinomial generalized linear mixed models to examine the relationship between city-level structural stigma and SOGI data completeness. Results. FQHCs in cities with more protective sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies reported more complete patient sexual orientation data (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 2.1). This association was also found for gender identity nondiscrimination policies and gender identity data collection (AOR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.3, 2.2). Conclusions. Municipal sexual and gender minority nondiscrimination laws are associated with social and municipal environments that facilitate patient SOGI data collection. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 9, 2021:e1–e5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306414 )

scholarly journals Required Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Reporting by US Health Centers: First-Year Data

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (8) ◽  
pp. 1111-1118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Grasso ◽  
Hilary Goldhammer ◽  
Danielle Funk ◽  
Dana King ◽  
Sari L. Reisner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
First Year ◽  
And Gender

scholarly journals Patient-Centered Practices for Engaging Transgender and Gender Diverse Patients in Clinical Research Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Asquith ◽  
Lauren Sava ◽  
Alexander B. Harris ◽  
Asa E. Radix ◽  
Dana J. Pardee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Centers ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Gender Diverse ◽  
And Gender

Abstract Background: The purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.Method: Between September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N=28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.Results: Participants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) being male, 3 (10.7%) female, 8 (28.6%) transgender male, 10 (35.7%) transgender female, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a ‘cisgender lens”, distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.Conclusion: Though similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.

scholarly journals Patient-centered practices for engaging transgender and gender diverse patients in clinical research studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Asquith ◽  
Lauren Sava ◽  
Alexander B. Harris ◽  
Asa E. Radix ◽  
Dana J. Pardee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Centers ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Gender Diverse ◽  
And Gender

Abstract Background The purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers. Method Between September–November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N = 28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software. Results Participants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18–66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) men, 3 (10.7%) women, 8 (28.6%) transgender men, 10 (35.7%) transgender women, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a ‘cisgender lens”, distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative. Conclusion Though similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document