Demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and healthcare experiences of 6333 trans and non-binary adults in England: nationally representative evidence from the 2021 GP Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: In order to address the lack of data on the health and healthcare needs of trans and non-binary adults, NHS England includes questions asking about both gender and trans status in its surveys to support quality improvement programmes.We used self-reported data from the GP Patient Survey to answer the research question: what are the demographic characteristics, health conditions and healthcare experiences of trans and non-binary adults in England? DESIGN/SETTING: Nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional survey in England with survey data collection from January to March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 840 691 survey respondents including 6333 trans and non-binary adults. OUTCOMES: We calculated weighted descriptive statistics, and using logistic regression explored 15 long-term physical and mental health conditions, and 18 patient experience items, covering overall experience, access, communication and continuity. RESULTS: Trans and non-binary adults were younger, more likely to be from Asian, black, mixed or other ethnic groups and more likely to live in more deprived parts of the country. Age-specific patterns of long-term conditions were broadly similar among trans and non-binary adults compared with all other survey respondents, with some variation by condition. Overall, inequalities in long-term health conditions were largest for autism: OR (95% CI), 5.8 (5.0 to 6.6), dementia: 3.1 (2.5 to 3.9), learning disabilities: 2.8 (2.4 to 3.2) and mental health: 2.0 (1.9 to 2.2), with variation by age. In healthcare experience, disparities are much greater for interpersonal communication (OR for reporting a positive experience, range 0.4 to 0.7 across items) than access (OR range 0.8 to 1.2). Additionally, trans and non-binary adults report much higher preference for continuity 1.7 (1.6 to 1.8), with no evidence of any differences in being able to see or speak to a preferred general practitioner. CONCLUSION: This research adds up to date evidence about population demographics, health and healthcare needs to support healthcare improvement for trans and non-binary adults.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes.

BACKGROUND: Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers. METHODS: Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes. RESULTS: Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context. CONCLUSIONS: From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers are not common.We reviewed published research priorities covering LGBTQ+ topics and held an online workshop. The review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research published priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five were on transgender and gender non- conforming populations. Priorities were achieved by different methods such as workshops and surveys. People involved in setting priorities mostly included researchers, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in the review were grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop.For the online workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert and offered payment for their time. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to agreeing a final list of seven research themes in priority order. Participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units were helpful.From the workshop the three top research themes were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular and multiple challenges of people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Research themes interconnected in many ways as shown by the comments from workshop participants. This paper describes why these priorities were important from participants' perspective and offers information about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise.