Receipt of Gender-Affirming Surgeries Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) can be an important part of comprehensive care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, but this care is not provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) because of an exclusion in the medical benefits package. OBJECTIVE: To describe the receipt of GAS by veterans and assess the associations between key sociodemographic characteristics and receipt of chest ("top") and genital ("bottom") surgeries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey (the GendeR Affirming Care Evaluation (GRACE)), among TGD Veterans conducted between September 2022 and July 2023. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6653 Veterans (54% response rate) completed the survey. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported "top" and "bottom" GAS were key outcomes. Covariates included gender identity, sex assigned at birth, age, race, ethnicity, income, employment status, education, relationship status, sexual orientation, and geographic region. KEY RESULTS: Among all respondents, 39% had ≥ 1 GAS. Among the 4430 veterans interested in top surgery, 38% received it; 23% of 3911 veterans interested in bottom surgery had received it. In multivariable models, older age (50 + vs. 18-39) was associated with higher receipt of top and bottom surgery while nonbinary gender identity (vs. binary gender identity), lower household income (< $50,000 vs. > $75,000), less education (less than a college graduate vs. Master's degree or more), sexual orientations other than heterosexual, and residing in a region other than the Pacific were associated with lower receipt of top and bottom surgery. Individuals assigned male (vs. assigned female) at birth had lower receipt of top surgery and higher receipt of bottom surgery. CONCLUSIONS: GAS receipt was low and there were important disparities by gender, sex, income, education, sexual orientation, and region. By removing the exclusion to providing GAS, VA could reduce barriers to accessing GAS and decrease disparities among TGD veterans.

Gender differences in prosthesis-related outcomes among veterans: Results of a national survey of U.S. veterans.

BACKGROUND: Women with lower extremity amputations (LEAs) tend to have poorer prosthesis-related outcomes than men, although the literature is sparse. To our knowledge, there are no prior studies examining prosthesis-related outcomes of women veterans with LEAs. OBJECTIVE: To examine gender differences (overall and by type of amputation) among veterans who underwent LEAs between 2005 and 2018, received care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) prior to undergoing amputation, and were prescribed a prosthesis. It was hypothesized that compared to men, women would report lower satisfaction with prosthetic services, poorer prosthesis fit, lower prosthesis satisfaction, less prosthesis use, and worse self-reported mobility. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that gender differences in outcomes would be more pronounced among individuals with transfemoral than among those with transtibial amputations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. Linear regressions were used to assess overall gender differences in outcomes and gender differences based on type of amputation in a national sample of veterans. SETTING: VHA medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 449 veterans who self-identified their gender (women = 165, men = 284) with transtibial (n = 236), transfemoral (n = 135), and bilateral LEAs (n = 68) including all amputation etiologies. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Orthotics and Prosthetics User's Survey, Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experiences Scale, and Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility-Short Form were used to assess satisfaction with prosthetic services, prosthesis fit, prosthesis satisfaction, prosthesis use, and self-reported mobility. RESULTS: Women had poorer self-reported mobility than men (d = -0.26, 95% confidence interval -0.49 to -0.02, p < .05); this difference was small. There were no statistically significant gender differences in satisfaction with prosthetic services, prosthesis fit, prosthesis satisfaction, daily hours of prosthesis use, or by amputation type. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the hypothesis, prosthesis-related outcomes were similar between men and women with LEAs. Minimal differences may in part be due to receiving care from the VHA's integrated Amputation System of Care.

Recruiting Sexual and Gender Minority Veterans for Health Disparities Research: Recruitment Protocol of a Web-Based Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The Health for Every Veteran Study is the first Veterans Health Administration-funded, nationwide study on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) veterans' health that relies exclusively on primary recruitment methods. This study aimed to recruit 1600 veterans with diverse sexual and gender identities to study the mental health and health risk behaviors of this population. A growing body of literature highlights the health inequities faced by LGBTQ+ veterans when compared with their heterosexual or cisgender peer groups. However, there is little to no guidance in the health disparities literature describing the recruitment of LGBTQ+ veterans. OBJECTIVE: This paper provides an overview of the recruitment methodology of Health for Every Veteran Study. We describe the demographics of the enrolled cohort, challenges faced during recruitment, and considerations for recruiting LGBTQ+ veterans for health research. METHODS: Recruitment for this study was conducted for 15 months, from September 2019 to December 2020, with the goal of enrolling 1600 veterans evenly split among 8 sexual orientation and gender identity subgroups: cisgender heterosexual women, cisgender lesbian women, cisgender bisexual women, cisgender heterosexual men, cisgender gay men, cisgender bisexual men, transgender women, and transgender men. Three primary recruitment methods were used: social media advertising predominantly through Facebook ads, outreach to community organizations serving veterans and LGBTQ+ individuals across the United States, and contracting with a research recruitment company, Trialfacts. RESULTS: Of the 3535 participants screened, 1819 participants met the eligibility criteria, and 1062 completed the baseline survey to enroll. At baseline, 25.24% (268/1062) were recruited from Facebook ads, 40.49% (430/1062) from community outreach, and 34.27% (364/1062) from Trialfacts. Most subgroups neared the target enrollment goals, except for cisgender bisexual men, women, and transgender men. An exploratory group of nonbinary and genderqueer veterans and veterans with diverse gender identities was included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: All recruitment methods contributed to significant portions of the enrolled cohort, suggesting that a multipronged approach was a critical and successful strategy in our study of LGBTQ+ veterans. We discuss the strengths and challenges of all recruitment methods, including factors impacting recruitment such as the COVID-19 pandemic, negative comments on Facebook ads, congressional budget delays, and high-volume surges of heterosexual participants from community outreach. In addition, our subgroup stratification offers important disaggregated insights into the recruitment of specific LGBTQ+ subgroups. Finally, the web-based methodology offers important perspectives not only for reaching veterans outside of the Veterans Health Administration but also for research studies taking place in the COVID-19-impacted world. Overall, this study outlines useful recruitment methodologies and lessons learned to inform future research that seeks to recruit marginalized communities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43824.

Disparities in Mental Health and Health Risk Behaviors for LGBT Veteran Subgroups in a National U.S. Survey.

Purpose: This study examined differences in mental health and health risk behaviors across sexual orientation and gender identity among U.S. veterans. Methods: Veterans were recruited through targeted social media advertising, community organizations, and listservs to complete an online survey (N = 1062). Generalized linear regression was used to evaluate differences in outcomes between subgroups, which included cisgender heterosexual men and women, lesbian women, gay men, bisexual men and women, transgender men and women, and veterans with other gender identities. Results: Transgender men and women reported a significantly higher prevalence of lifetime suicide plans and attempts compared to all other subgroups within the respective genders. Beyond this finding, patterns of all outcomes varied by gender. Compared to other subgroups of men, transgender men reported higher prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder, whereas cisgender gay men reported higher prevalence of lifetime cocaine use and positive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status. Within the women subgroups, all LGBT subgroups reported higher prevalence of lifetime smoking and past-year marijuana use compared to heterosexual women. Cisgender lesbian women also reported higher prevalence of past-month heavy episodic drinking, and cisgender bisexual women reported higher prevalence of lifetime cocaine and stimulant use compared to other groups. Conclusion: Transgender women and men reported significantly higher prevalence of lifetime suicide plans and attempts than other groups, highlighting this as an area in need of urgent public health attention. Other disparity patterns indicated the importance of examining subgroups within the LGBT veteran community.