Required Mental Health Evaluation Before Initiating Gender-Affirming Hormones: Trans and Nonbinary Perspectives.

Purpose: Gender-affirming hormones (hormones)-the use of sex hormones to induce desired secondary sex characteristics in transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals-are vital health care for many TGNB people. Some hormone providers require a letter from a mental health provider before hormone initiation. We explore the perspectives of TGNB individuals regarding the impact of the letter requirement on their experience of care. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 21 TGNB individuals who have sought or are receiving hormones. We purposively sampled respondents who were (n=12) and were not (n=8) required to provide a letter. An Advisory Board of transgender individuals guided the methodology. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded both inductively and deductively. Results: We identified three themes related to the letter requirement: (1) Mental health: While participants appreciated the importance of therapy, the letter requirement did not serve this purpose; (2) Trans identity: The process of obtaining a letter created doubt in participants' own transness, along with a resistance to the pathologization and conflation of mental illness with transness; and (3) Care relationships: The letter requirement negatively impacted the patient-provider relationship. Participants felt the need to self-censor or to perform a version of transness they thought the provider expected; this process decreased their trust in care professionals. Conclusion: A letter requirement did not improve mental health and had several negative consequences. Removal of this requirement will improve access to hormones and may paradoxically improve mental health.

Initiating gender-affirming hormones for transgender and non-binary people: A qualitative study of providers' perspectives on requiring mental health evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Gender-affirming hormones (GAH)-the use of sex hormones to induce desired secondary sex characteristics in transgender individuals-is vital healthcare for many transgender people. Among prescribers of GAH, there is debate regarding the value of a universal requirement for an evaluation by a mental health provider prior to GAH initiation. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the range of attitudes and approaches to mental health evaluation among GAH providers in the United States. We analyzed the providers' attitudes and base our recommendations on this analysis. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 healthcare providers who prescribe GAH across the United States. Participants were purposefully recruited using professional networks and snowball sampling to include those who require mental health evaluation and those who do not. We adapted domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework-a framework for understanding influences on health professional behavior-to inform the interviews and analysis. Guided by these domains, we iteratively coded text and identified theoretical relationships among the categories. RESULTS: While some felt a universal requirement for mental health "clearance" was necessary for the identification of appropriate candidates for GAH, others described this requirement as a form of "gatekeeping" that limits access to care. Themes we identified included providers' ability to ascertain gender identity; concern about mental illness; GAH provider and mental health provider expertise; and provider roles. All providers appreciated the potential advantages of mental health support during GAH treatment. CONCLUSION: Providers in our study practice on a continuum of care rather than adhering to strict rules about the requirement for mental health evaluation prior to GAH treatment. Where they fall on this continuum is influenced primarily by their perceptions of transgender identity and transition, and their interpretation of risk for significant mental illness and its association with transness. Providers who required universal evaluation by a mental health professional tended to hold essentialist, medicalized, and binary ideas of gender and transness.

Bridging the Expertise of Advocates and Academics to Identify Reproductive Justice Learning Outcomes.

Phenomenon: Reproductive justice (RJ) is defined by women of color advocates as the right to have children, not have children and parent children while maintaining reproductive autonomy. In the United States, physicians have been complicit in multiple historical reproductive injustices, involving coercive sterilization of thousands of people of color, low income, and disabilities. Currently, reproductive injustices continue to occur; however, physicians have no formal RJ medical education to address injustices. The objective of this study was to engage leading advocates within the movement using a Delphi method to identify critical components for such a curriculum. Approach: In 2016, we invited 65 RJ advocates and leaders to participate in an expert panel to design RJ medical education. A 3-round Delphi survey was distributed electronically to identify content for inclusion in an RJ curriculum. In the next 2 survey rounds, experts offered feedback and revisions and rated agreement with including content recommendations in the final curriculum. We calculated descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data. A team with educational expertise wrote learning outcomes based on expert content recommendations. Findings: Of the 65 RJ advocates and leaders invited, 41 participated on the expert panel of the Delphi survey. In the first survey, the expert panel recommended 58 RJ content areas through open-ended response. Over the next 2 rounds, there was consensus among the panel to include 52 of 58 of these areas in the curriculum. Recommended content fell into 11 broad domains: access, disparities, and structural competency; advocacy; approaches to reproductive healthcare; contemporary law and policy; cultural safety; historical injustices; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex health; oppression, power, and bias training; patient care; reproductive health; and RJ definitions. The 97 learning outcomes created from this process represented both unique and existing educational elements. Insights: A collaborative methodology infused with RJ values can bridge experts in advocacy and academics. New learning outcomes identified through this process can enhance medical education; however, it is just as important to consider education in RJ approaches to care as it is knowledge about that care. We must explore the pedagogic process of RJ medical education while considering that expertise in this area may exist outside of the medical community and thus there is a need to partner with RJ advocates. Finally, we expect to use innovative teaching methods to transform medical education and achieve an RJ focus.

Substance Use Treatment Patient and Provider Perspectives on Accessing Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: Barriers, Facilitators, and the Need for Integration of Care.

Background: Women with substance use disorders have high rates of adverse sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes, including unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and contraceptive nonuse. Little research has explored barriers and facilitators to accessing SRH services experienced by women with substance use disorders. Objectives: To investigate barriers and facilitators to accessing SRH services experienced by women with substance use disorders. To assess perspectives on integration of SRH services into substance use treatment. Methods: Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with female patients (N = 17) and providers (N = 12) at four substance use treatment facilities in Michigan between October 2015 and January 2016. Respondents were asked about experiences accessing SRH services and perspectives on integration of SRH services into substance use treatment. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results: Patients and providers discussed barriers to accessing SRH services, including competing priorities, structural barriers, lack of knowledge on SRH services and substance use, fear of Child Protective Services and law enforcement, and stigma. Facilitators included reprioritization of SRH, accessible transportation, insurance coverage and funding for SRH services, and education and training on SRH. Finally, participants expressed support for integration of SRH services into substance use treatment. Conclusions/Importance: Understanding the barriers to accessing SRH services is essential to reducing the adverse SRH outcomes experienced by women with substance use disorders. Substance use treatment is a critical time to offer SRH services. Integration of care is a potential model for improving the SRH of women with substance use disorders.

Intrauterine Device Insertion Before and After Mandated Health Care Coverage: The Importance of Baseline Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in out-of-pocket cost for intrauterine device (IUD) placement before and after mandated coverage of contraceptive services and to examine how changes in out-of-pocket cost influence IUD insertion as a function of baseline cost. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional pre-post analysis at the plan level using a large deidentified medical claims database to analyze our primary outcome, new IUD insertions among women enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans in 2009 and 2014, and our secondary outcome, out-of-pocket cost. Patient costs and utilization were aggregated by plan and year to conduct a plan-specific analysis. Plans were classified by mean out-of-pocket cost level: no out-of-pocket cost, low out-of-pocket cost (less than the 75th percentile), and high out-of-pocket cost (75th percentile or greater). A generalized estimating equation was used to evaluate average plan utilization of IUD services in 2009 and 2014 as a function of plan cost category and year. RESULTS: Overall, average plan utilization of IUD services demonstrated a significant increase between 2009 (12.5%, 95% CI 11.6-13.4%) and 2014 (13.8%, 95% CI 13.0-14.7%; P<.001). When plans were grouped by out-of-pocket cost level, significant differences in plan utilization over time were observed. Plans that went from high out-of-pocket cost in 2009 to no out-of-pocket cost in 2014 saw a higher average increase in the rate of plan IUD insertions over time (2.4%, 95% CI 0.04-4.5%) compared with plans with no out-of-pocket cost in both 2009 and 2014 (-1.0%, 95% CI -3.3 to 1.4%, P=.02). Among all women in all plans, the 75th percentile of out-of-pocket cost in 2009 was $368; this number dropped to $0 in 2014. CONCLUSION: Women in plans with the greatest reduction in out-of-pocket cost after mandated coverage of contraception had the greatest gains in IUD insertion. This suggests that baseline cost should be considered in evaluations of this policy and others that eliminate patient out-of-pocket cost.