No abstract

Background: Transgender individuals experience unique vulnerabilities to intimate partner violence (IPV) and may experience a disproportionate IPV burden compared with cisgender (nontransgender) individuals. Objectives: To systematically review the quantitative literature on prevalence and correlates of IPV in transgender populations. Search Methods: Authors searched research databases (PubMed, CINAHL), gray literature (Google), journal tables of contents, and conference abstracts, and consulted experts in the field. Authors were contacted with data requests in cases in which transgender participants were enrolled in a study, but no disaggregated statistics were provided for this population. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative literature published before July 2019 on prevalence and correlates of IPV victimization, perpetration, or service utilization in transgender populations. There were no restrictions by sample size, year, or location. Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers conducted screening. One reviewer conducted extraction by using a structured database, and a second reviewer checked for mistakes or omissions. We used random-effects meta-analyses to calculate relative risks (RRs) comparing the prevalence of IPV in transgender individuals and cisgender individuals in studies in which both transgender and cisgender individuals were enrolled. We also used meta-analysis to compare IPV prevalence in assigned-female-sex-at-birth and assigned-male-sex-at-birth transgender individuals and to compare physical IPV prevalence between nonbinary and binary transgender individuals in studies that enrolled both groups. Main Results: We identified 85 articles from 74 unique data sets (ntotal = 49 966 transgender participants). Across studies reporting it, the median lifetime prevalence of physical IPV was 37.5%, lifetime sexual IPV was 25.0%, past-year physical IPV was 16.7%, and past-year sexual IPV was 10.8% among transgender individuals. Compared with cisgender individuals, transgender individuals were 1.7 times more likely to experience any IPV (RR = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36, 2.03), 2.2 times more likely to experience physical IPV (RR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.66, 2.88), and 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual IPV (RR = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.64, 3.69). Disparities persisted when comparing to cisgender women specifically. There was no significant difference in any IPV, physical IPV, or sexual IPV prevalence between assigned-female-sex-at-birth and assigned-male-sex-at-birth individuals, nor in physical IPV prevalence between binary- and nonbinary-identified transgender individuals. IPV victimization was associated with sexual risk, substance use, and mental health burden in transgender populations. Authors’ Conclusions: Transgender individuals experience a dramatically higher prevalence of IPV victimization compared with cisgender individuals, regardless of sex assigned at birth. IPV prevalence estimates are comparably high for assigned-male-sex-at-birth and assigned-female-sex-at-birth transgender individuals, and for binary and nonbinary transgender individuals, though more research is needed. Public Health Implications: Evidence-based interventions are urgently needed to prevent and address IPV in this high-risk population with unique needs. Lack of legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and social services likely foster vulnerability to IPV. Transgender individuals should be explicitly included in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations promoting IPV screening in primary care settings. Interventions at the policy level as well as the interpersonal and individual level are urgently needed to address epidemic levels of IPV in this marginalized, high-risk population. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 16, 2020: e1–e14. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774)

Guidelines for cervical cancer screening have evolved rapidly over the last several years, with a trend toward longer intervals between screenings and an increasing number of screening options, such as Pap/HPV co-testing and HPV testing as a primary screening. However, gynecological recommendations often do not include clinical considerations specific to patients on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum. Both patients and providers may not accurately assess risk for HPV and other sexually transmitted infections, understand barriers to care, or be aware of recommendations for cervical cancer screening and other appropriate sexual and reproductive health services for this patient population. We review the evidence and provide guidance on minimizing emotional discomfort before, during, and after a pelvic exam, minimizing physical discomfort during the exam, and making adaptations to account for testosterone-induced anatomical changes common among FTM patients.

Transmasculine (i.e., female-to-male transgender) individuals have lower rates of cervical cancer screening than nontransgender women and often report negative experiences with the Pap test. Deciding to undergo screening and the test experience itself are characterized by the following processes: negotiating identity as the patient, provider, and insurance company wrestle with the degree of (in)congruence between a patient's masculine gender identity and their conception of the Pap test as feminine; bargaining for health as a Pap test may be required to obtain medical transition services or avoid undesired health outcomes; withstanding acute challenges during the Pap test to body, identity, and privacy; or reframing challenges as affirmation. The degree of distress triggered by the Pap test varied from "routine" to traumatic. Participants affirmed that a trusted, trans-competent health care provider could significantly reduce barriers to regular and satisfactory cervical cancer screening. Data are from 32 in-depth interviews conducted in Boston, Massachusetts, with transmasculine individuals; a modified grounded theory approach informed the analysis.