The experiences of transgender and nonbinary adults in primary care: a systematic review

Background:Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people face barriers to primary care, which remains the main entry point for accessing gender-affirming healthcare in the UK.Objectives:This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding TNB people’s experiences of primary care with the aim of informing improvements in service and patient outcomes.Methods:This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted across articles from 2005 to April 2023 across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and PsychInfo using established keywords relating to gender identity, primary care and experiences.Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data were compiled using a descriptive narrative.Results:Following eligibility criteria, 16 articles were included in this review. This review identified both facilitators and limitations and barriers experienced by TNB people related to primary care provider knowledge; the patient-provider relationship, and healthcare settings. Quantitative findings reported up to 54.4% of participants were uncomfortable discussing TNB issues with their physician. Overall findings suggest TNB people face discrimination on a systemic level utilising primary care services, though positive healthcare encounters at a local level were reported. Participants expressed a desire for primary care led gender-affirming healthcare services, with involvement from local TNB communities.Conclusion:This review demonstrates TNB people’s mixed experiences of primary care alongside their recommendations for service improvement. This is the first systematically reviewed evidence on the topic, emphasising the need for clinicians and policymakers to centre the voices of the TNB community in service design and improvement.</p

The experiences of transgender and nonbinary adults in primary care: a systematic review

Background:Transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people face barriers to primary care, which remains the main entry point for accessing gender-affirming healthcare in the UK.Objectives:This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding TNB people’s experiences of primary care with the aim of informing improvements in service and patient outcomes.Methods:This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted across articles from 2005 to April 2023 across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and PsychInfo using established keywords relating to gender identity, primary care and experiences.Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data were compiled using a descriptive narrative.Results:Following eligibility criteria, 16 articles were included in this review. This review identified both facilitators and limitations and barriers experienced by TNB people related to primary care provider knowledge; the patient-provider relationship, and healthcare settings. Quantitative findings reported up to 54.4% of participants were uncomfortable discussing TNB issues with their physician. Overall findings suggest TNB people face discrimination on a systemic level utilising primary care services, though positive healthcare encounters at a local level were reported. Participants expressed a desire for primary care led gender-affirming healthcare services, with involvement from local TNB communities.Conclusion:This review demonstrates TNB people’s mixed experiences of primary care alongside their recommendations for service improvement. This is the first systematically reviewed evidence on the topic, emphasising the need for clinicians and policymakers to centre the voices of the TNB community in service design and improvement.</p

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol

Introduction As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. Methods and analysis This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID