Adolescent Providers' Experiences of Harassment Related to Delivering Gender-Affirming Care.

PURPOSE: The politicization of adolescent gender-affirming care has occurred alongside targeted harassment (e.g., threats of violence, doxing, bomb threats) of adolescent gender-affirming care providers across the United States. This study sought to explore their experiences of targeted harassment. METHODS: From October to December 2022, mental and physical health gender-affirming care providers from across the United States completed a survey including open-ended questions about the kinds of harassment they experienced (i.e., method and messages of harassment) and its impact on their lives and practices. Thematic analyses were used to analyze their responses. RESULTS: In total, 117 providers completed the survey and 70% shared that either they, their practice, or their institution had received threats specific to delivering gender-affirming care. The most common experiences were threats via social media or mailed letters. Several received death threats. Providers described how targeted harassment impacted their psychological well-being and required them to reassess clinic safety. Additionally, providers expressed the need for a more accurate representation of gender-affirming care in media and stronger advocacy from institutions and organizations emphasizing the importance of this care. DISCUSSION: Adolescent gender-affirming care providers are experiencing targeted harassment, significantly affecting their ability to deliver care to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents and their families. Providers stressed the importance of receiving support from their institutions to ensure their safety. The ongoing sociopolitical climate related to gender-affirming care coupled with targeted harassment of those providing it will further limit access to this care.

A randomized pilot trial of a telephone-based couples intervention for physical intimacy and sexual concerns in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed and piloted a telephone-based intimacy enhancement (IE) intervention addressing sexual concerns of colorectal cancer patients and their partners in an uncontrolled study. The current study tested the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the IE intervention in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Twenty-three couples were randomized to either the four-session IE condition or to a wait list control condition and completed sexual and relationship outcomes measures. The IE intervention teaches skills for coping with sexual concerns and improving intimacy. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through enrollment and post-treatment program evaluations, respectively. Effect sizes were calculated by comparing differences in average pre/post change scores across completers in the two groups (n = 18 couples). RESULTS: Recruitment and attrition data supported feasibility. Program evaluations for process (e.g., ease of participation) and content (e.g., relevance) demonstrated acceptability. Engaging in intimacy-building activities and communication were the skills rated as most commonly practiced and most helpful. For patients, positive effects of the IE intervention were found for female and male sexual function, medical impact on sexual function, and self-efficacy for enjoying intimacy (≥.58); no effects were found on sexual distress or intimacy and small negative effects for sexual communication, and two self-efficacy items. For partners, positive IE effects were found for all outcomes; the largest were for sexual distress (.69), male sexual function (1.76), communication (.97), and two self-efficacy items (≥.87). CONCLUSIONS: The telephone-based IE intervention shows promise for couples facing colorectal cancer. Larger multi-site intervention studies are necessary to replicate findings.