Abstract
Objectives Trans and/or gender diverse (T/GD) people in the UK are less likely to access sexual health services (SHS) than cisgender people but are more likely to report negative experiences. The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) developed expert recommendations for T/GD-inclusive SHS, but these lack service user perspectives. This study addressed this gap by asking T/GD people how SHS could be T/GD-inclusive.
Methods Semi-structured interviews (n=31) and focus groups (n=21) were conducted with T/GD people aged 17-71 years old recruited through community organisations and social media, exploring experiences of SHS and inclusivity. Study design, materials, and analysis were informed by T/GD people and an advisory committee of charities and sexual health clinicians. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, managed using NVivo.
Results Participants often expected that SHS were not set up for T/GD people. This was reinforced by poor experiences in other healthcare settings and the lack of information on NHS websites. Some participants had been denied care because they were ‘too complex.’ Participants wanted to know that SHS had engaged with the needs of T/GD people and looked for hallmarks of inclusivity, such as Trans Pride flags in reception areas. Some participants wanted specialist T/GD services, but others preferred to access general SHS. Staff attitudes were a key factor underpinning inclusivity. Anticipating having their identity questioned or needs dismissed, participants sought kindness and openness. Although the needs of T/GD people are diverse and different from cisgender service users, participants stressed that SHS staff already had the skills to deliver sensitive person-centred care and emphasised the value of inclusive SHS.
Conclusion These findings provide insight into what a sample of T/GD people in the UK consider important for T/GD-inclusive SHS. Participants’ suggestions aligned with and reinforce BASHH expert recommendations. Importantly, they highlight the need for ongoing engagement to deliver T/GD-inclusive SHS.
What is already known on this topic
Trans and/or gender diverse people are less likely to engage with sexual health services than cis-gender people
The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) Gender and Sexual Minority Special Interest Group (GSM SIG) has developed expert recommendations for trans-inclusive sexual health services, but user perspectives are missing
What this study adds
Participant suggestions and preferences for inclusive services support BASHH GSM recommendations
Participants looked for inclusive SHS that recognise, understand and affirm their needs
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
Enhancing T/GD inclusivity involves active engagement with clinical spaces, processes and delivery
Introduction
Transgender is an umbrella term to describe people whose gender identity or expression differs from their sex assigned at birth. Gender diversity refers to the extent to which an individual’s gender identity, role, or expression differs from the cultural norms prescribed for a particular sex. This includes those who identify as transgender and those who do not identify within the traditional gender binary (1). Robust estimates of the number of trans and/or gender diverse (T/GD) people in the UK are lacking, however, the 2021 Census for England and Wales included optional questions about gender identity for the first time and 262,000 (0.5%) respondents indicated their gender was different to sex assigned at birth (2). The number of people recorded as identifying as transgender identity recorded in UK primary care records has increased fivefold from 2000 to 2018 (3).
T/GD people in the UK face high levels of violence, harassment, stigma, discrimination, marginalisation, homelessness and underemployment (4, 5). These are associated with increased rates of alcohol and substance use, anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation (6, 7). T/GD people face multiple, intersecting barriers to accessing healthcare across diverse settings (8-12). Lack of information about sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of T/GD people, among both service users and providers, is a barrier to good quality care (13). Multiple structural, community, network and biological factors are associated with greater risk of HIV acquisition and lower rates of HIV testing among T/GD people globally (14-16). A survey of T/GD people in the UK suggested they are less likely to use sexual health services (SHS) than cisgender people (16). T/GD people using online sexual health testing had higher rates of HIV and STI positivity compared to cisgender service users, and reported complex sexual health needs, including engaging in chemsex, group sex, fisting and sex work (17). However, data are inconsistent and the first estimate of HIV prevalence among T/GD people in England suggested a similar prevalence to the general population (18).
The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) Gender and Sexual Minority Special Interest Group to produced expert recommendations for how sexual health services can provide inclusive care for T/GD people (19). The authors highlighted the lack of published evidence, including a need to understand service user perspectives. The aim of this study was to explore T/GD people’s experiences in SHS, and perspectives on how best to support their sexual health needs.
Methods
Design
This qualitative research was conducted by a cis-gender research team, guided by input from an expert steering group, consisting of representatives from trans community organisations and sexual health clinicians, and from T/GD patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives. The project was informed by published recommendations for research with trans participants (1). Participants were offered a choice of an individual interview or participating in a focus group. Ethical approval was granted by University College London Research Ethics Committee (8805/007).
Participants and recruitment
Participants aged ≥16 years old who self-identified as transgender and/or nonbinary and living in the UK were eligible to participate. Potential participants were invited to register their interest in the study via T/GD community organisations, social media, word of mouth and snowball sampling.
Purposive sampling was used to ensure representation of different gender identities across the sample. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study.
Procedure
Interviews lasted 45-90 minutes and were conducted via Zoom by an experienced researcher (TW, he/him), guided by a topic guide (on-line supplementary document 1). Interviews explored participants’ experiences of accessing SHS and their reflections on the inclusivity of services. Focus groups lasted 90 minutes and were conducted via Zoom by TW, supported by a research assistant. Discussions focused on participants’ shared understanding of sexual health, three patient vignettes and reflections on an ‘ideal’ T/GD-inclusive SHS. Both interviews and focus group discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed with informed consent. A voucher of £50 was offered to each participant. Data collection continued until the team judged that sufficient information power had been generated to meet the research aim (20).
Analysis
Data were analysed by TW using thematic analysis (21), supported by NVivo. Data were coded inductively and developed into initial themes. These themes were refined through iterative engagement with transcripts and named using data extracts from interviews and focus groups. Themes were validated by discussion between the research team (LMD, she/her; JSa, he/him; GR, she/her) and in consultation with steering group members (LH, she/her; LM, she/her; JSt, he/him) and PPI representatives.
Results
Two-hundred and ninety-six people expressed an interest in participating in the research, of whom fifty-nine were recruited to the study (see Table 1). Thirty-one individual interviews and three focus groups (n= 8; n=8; n=6) were conducted on-line between May and July 2022. A low number of trans women/transfeminine people initially expressed an interest in participating. To address this shortcoming, snowball sampling was used to recruit an additional focus group with trans women (n=4), which was conducted in July 2023. Participants reported diverse gender identities, sexualities and relationship types (see Table 2).
Data were coded and organised into initial themes: barriers to inclusive care, facilitators of inclusivity and how participants characterised inclusivity. From these, three cross-cutting narrative themes and subthemes were developed, which are presented here. Full supporting quotations are provided in Table 3.
1. “One way or another, you’re not going to fit”
Participants often believed that SHS were not set up for T/GD people. In some cases, this was based on negative experiences in other healthcare settings. Some of those who did engage with SHS described being denied care, either on the grounds of complexity, or because of ‘trans broken arm syndrome’ (22) where being transgender is inappropriately suspected as causing a complaint. Other participants portrayed an ‘uphill struggle’ accessing risk reduction interventions, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
Those who sought information about sexual health on the NHS website described how the lack of T/GD specific content meant the information was “aimed at the exact opposite people that I am” (Interview 1, she/her). Not only was this dehumanising and upsetting, it made some participants question whether the NHS acknowledge the existence of T/GD people. Participants also wondered if SHS essentialised T/GD service users as the sex they were assigned at birth, for example that trans women are “people who have sex with men but who are, in the eyes of doctors, also kind of a man” (Focus group participant, she/her).
These experiences, both of SHS and wider healthcare, compounded by experiences of societal transphobia, contributed to low levels of engagement with SHS among participants and shaped the expectations of those who did engage with services.
2. “If people come in, they shouldn’t be a surprise”
To overcome expectations of a lack of inclusivity, participants wanted to know that SHS had engaged with the needs of T/GD people. In the context of increasing hostility towards T/GD people, some sought reassurance that they would be welcome, “you don’t always have that assurance that [LGBT spaces] are going to be trans friendly” (Interview 11, she/her). Having Trans or Progress Pride flags in reception areas indicated active engagement with T/GD inclusivity. Some participants felt a statement of inclusivity was a sufficiently positive indicator but for others having explicit T/GD policies supported their trustworthiness, “describing on their website exactly the things that they do to make them trans-inclusive; not just saying that they’re trans-inclusive” (Interview 21, they/them/he/him).
Some had experienced being misgendered when arriving at SHS. In services where reception staff avoided using gendered terms when greeting people, this simple change had a positive impact. The arrangement of physical spaces and facilities was also important for a sense of being expected and welcomed by services, for example not having waiting areas segregated by gender and provision of neutral toilets. Registration forms with appropriate gender options were also an indication of inclusivity, and having non-binary options further increased confidence that services were engaged with the needs of T/GD people. As well as indicating inclusivity, registration forms could also help facilitate consultations (see ‘You can talk to people normally’, below). Staff sharing their pronouns at the start of consultations or on name badges could help establish that they were engaged with the needs of T/GD people.
Participants had diverse opinions on how services should be configured. Some would prefer a dedicated clinic, feeling more comfortable in waiting areas with other T/GD people, but expressed concerns that this could make it a target for harassment or funding cuts. Others preferred being seen as part of general services, to support a sense of normality and to avoid ‘outing’ themselves.
3. “You can just speak to people normally”
Interactions with staff during consultations was a key factor that underpinned good experiences of care. Anticipating having their identity questioned or needs dismissed, participants sought kindness and openness. Participants recognised that sometimes staff with less experience of providing care to T/GD people were anxious not to cause offence. While the majority appreciated the effort being made, some found it frustrating, “I get that it comes from a place from not wanting to upset me but… this conversation is just taking longer!” (Interview 27, he/him).
Participants emphasised the importance of avoiding making assumptions about T/GD people’s genital configurations or sexual practices during interactions, for example when providing kits for self-sampling or discussing event-based PrEP. They suggested that registration forms that gave service users the opportunity to share an ‘organ inventory’ could help facilitate this. Some participants had terminology they preferred to use for their bodies, for example ‘front hole’ instead of ‘vagina,’ and having the opportunity to share these preferences at registration and have them used during consultations was an important way for them to be affirmed in the interaction.
Participants did not expect healthcare professionals to have a detailed knowledge of T/GD people, but to have a ‘general awareness’ (Focus group participant, they/he) of their sexual health needs. Although some felt it was important for them to teach clinicians about T/GD sexual health during consultations, others described situations where they had been made uncomfortable by intense questioning about their identity or about topics not relevant to the conversation, for example about plans for affirming surgeries. Participants suggested that staff should be aware of and proactively offer additional services that would support T/GD people, including provision of cervical smears for those with a cervix; monitoring for those self-sourcing gender-affirming hormones and T/GD appropriate support for people who had experienced sexual assault.
Although the specific needs of T/GD people might be diverse and different from cisgender service users, participants stressed that SHS staff already had the skills to deliver sensitive person-centred care: “you don’t have to build from the ground up in terms of knowing how to get people to talk about their bodies and their health problems” (Interview 17, he/him). Several participants who had positive experiences wanted to emphasise the value of inclusive SHS: “I feel very safe there. I feel listened to. And I don’t feel awkward or an anomaly or strange, or other. That’s really, really special in healthcare” (Interview 029, he/him).
Discussion
Compounded by experiences of societal transphobia, participants’ negative experiences of healthcare contributed to low levels of engagement with SHS and shaped the expectations of those who did engage with services. This study found that T/GD people often expect that SHS are not designed to meet their needs, that they look for signs when judging if a service is inclusive and that a person-centred approach to consultations, along with basic awareness of T/GD people’s sexual health needs, can help to meet common expectations of good care. These findings highlight how simple changes can impact on T/GD people’s experience of services. The lack of consensus among participants suggests that one model will not be sufficient to meet the needs and preferences of all and the need for inclusive practice in all services.
The strengths of this research are its inclusion of participants with diverse gender identities and the involvement of a PPI group throughout the research to ensure questions, approach, interpretation were appropriate. Through the development of narrative overarching themes, this analysis is specific to sexual health and goes beyond barriers and facilitators of access to healthcare, which have been well explored in other studies (8-12). The limitations of this research centre on the predominantly White, urban, university educated sample (see Table 2) which means that the experiences and perspectives may under emphasise the role of intersecting inequalities and limits transferability to other settings.
The findings offer support for the recommendations of the BASHH Gender and Sexual Minority Specialist Interest Group regarding trans-inclusive sexual health services. These recommendations emphasise the need for gender-neutral registration forms, waiting and examination rooms, as well as toilets. Additionally, they underscore the importance of staff undergoing proper equality and diversity training. From a clinical perspective, the recommendations focus on several key aspects, including asking and respecting patients’ pronouns, tailoring STI testing to individual sexual practices and risks. Furthermore, the recommendations encourage inquiring about experiences of interpersonal domestic and sexual violence, recognising that these are common challenges faced by T/GD people.
Despite the existence of the BASHH recommendations, the widespread low expectations of SHS among participants emphasises the need for services to overcome these perceptions and engage with T/GD people. The importance of community in engagement with healthcare has been stressed in other studies with T/GD people (23). This points to the importance of developing trust and establishing the trustworthiness of services as part of this process. Research on physician patient relationships point to the role that social and historical context can play in mistrust between people from marginalized groups and healthcare services, as well as the importance of respect, partnership and time and consistency in building trust (24, 25). Other studies of LGBTQ+ experience of services describe how physical spaces, service infrastructure and interactions with staff are all critical to creating “safe spaces that matter” (26). Allyship for healthcare professionals includes embracing new ways of thinking and delivering care to those who might typically be excluded (27). T/GD people in this research had diverse sexual health needs, linked to not only their identity and gender affirming care, but also their relationships and sexual practices, which changed over time for many. However, by following a person-centred approach to consultations, the needs and priorities of each individual can be ascertained and met. National guidelines on person-centred sexual history taking were updated to reflect gender diversity in 2019 (28). The diversity of sexual health needs are linked to gender affirming care, which is a critical component of the sexual and reproductive health of T/GD people (29).
These findings help to provide an evidence base for the BASHH expert recommendations and provide clinicians with some very simple and easy to adopt recommendations that make a significant impact to T/GD service users, such as ‘just saying hello’ and including pronouns when introducing themselves. They also outline structural changes that could be made to facilitate easier interactions, for example on registration forms, electronic patient records, and self-sampling kits. However, they also highlight the challenges of providing services that will meet everyone’s preferences but provide principles of inclusivity that can be delivered in all services.
Future research on provider perspectives in UK SHS would complement emerging research in other healthcare settings (30). These findings could be used to inform the development and implementation of interventions to improve the experiences of T/GD people in UK SHS. They could also inform the development of further research to quantify how common these experiences are and develop understanding of how they are associated with sociodemographic and behavioural variables.
Conclusion
These findings are consistent with and provide further support for existing BASHH GSM recommendations for inclusive SHS. They highlight the need for services to actively engage to reach a population with potentially greater sexual health needs who are disengaged with services. To meet needs of range of T/GD people there is a need for both specialised clinics and general inclusivity of services.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
References
