Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation among latino MSM: a qualitative scoping review of implementation determinants and change methods.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing rates of HIV among Latino men who have sex with men (MSM) necessitate innovative and rigorous studies to evaluate prevention and treatment strategies. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective tool in preventing HIV acquisition and plays a crucial role in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, there is a scarcity of PrEP research specifically focused on Latino MSM, and the factors influencing its implementation remain largely unknown. METHODS: To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive review exploring the determinants (barriers and facilitators) of PrEP implementation among Latino MSM, as well as the change methods (implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions) that have been evaluated to promote its adoption. Our review encompassed 43 peer-reviewed articles examining determinants and four articles assessing change methods. Determinants were coded using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators associated with implementation. RESULTS: The majority of research has focused on PrEP recipients (i.e., patients), primarily examining their awareness and willingness to use PrEP. Fewer studies have explored the factors influencing clinicians and service delivery systems. Additionally, the evaluation of change methods to enhance clinician adoption and adherence to PrEP and recipient adherence to PrEP has been limited. CONCLUSION: It is evident that there is a need for culturally adapted strategies tailored specifically for Latino MSM, as the current literature remains largely unexplored in this regard. By incorporating principles from implementation science, we can gain a clearer understanding of the knowledge, skills, and roles necessary for effective cultural adaptations. Future research should emphasize factors influencing implementation from a clinician standpoint and focus on innovative change methods to increase PrEP awareness, reach, adoption, and sustained adherence among Latino MSM.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Keep It Up!, A Digital Health Intervention, in Community-Based Organizations.

Despite ongoing investments in the development and testing of new digital interventions for HIV prevention, the widespread use of interventions with proven effectiveness remains limited. This study assessed real-world implementation of a digital HIV prevention intervention, Keep It Up!. The study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing Keep It Up! within community-based organizations (CBOs) serving racially diverse sexual and gender minoritized populations. The Keep It Up! trial is a type III effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial to compare two delivery approaches: direct-to-consumer and CBO-based implementation. This manuscript focuses on the CBO-based approach through interviews with CBO staff members before and during implementation (n = 37 and n = 25, respectively). Interviews were coded according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and thematically analyzed. Staff highlighted adaptability, leadership engagement, compatibility, and organizational culture as facilitators of Keep It Up! implementation. Identified barriers included self-efficacy, motivation, staff turnover, and partnerships and connections. CBO infrastructure, capacity, research experience, and processes influenced the relative importance of these barriers and facilitators. This study is one of the first to detail barriers and facilitators experienced by staff implementing a digital HIV prevention intervention in CBOs. Interviews illuminated the need for interventions like Keep It Up! for young men who have sex with men and detailed the need for additional strategies to assist CBOs unfamiliar with implementing digital health interventions. Trial Registration Number: NCT03896776.

RESUMEN: A pesar de a las inversiones hechas en el desarrollo y prueba de nuevas intervenciones digitales para prevenir el VIH, el uso generalizado de intervenciones eficaces aun es limitado. Este estudio evaluó la implementación en el mundo real de una intervención digital de prevención del VIH, Keep It Up!. El estudio identificó barreras y facilitadores para implementar Keep It Up! dentro de organizaciones comunitarias que atienden a personas minorizadas por género y sexualidad. El ensayo de Keep It Up! es un ensayo híbrido de efectividad-implementación de tipo III para comparar dos enfoques de entrega: implementación directa al consumidor e implementación en organizaciones comunitarias. Este manuscrito se centra en la implementación en organizaciones comunitarias a través de entrevistas con miembros del personal de las organizaciones antes y durante la implementación (n = 37 y n = 25, respectivamente). Las entrevistas se codificaron de acuerdo con el Marco Conceptual Consolidado para la Investigación de Implementación y se analizaron temáticamente. El personal destacó la adaptabilidad, el compromiso del liderazgo, la compatibilidad, y la cultura organizacional como facilitadores de la implementación de Keep It Up!. Las barreras identificadas incluyeron la autoeficacia, la motivación, la rotación de personal, y las asociaciones y conexiones. La infraestructura, capacidad, experiencia en investigación, y procesos de las organizaciones comunitarias influyeron en la importancia relativa de estas barreras y facilitadores. Este estudio es uno de los primeros en detallar las barreras y los facilitadores que experimenta el personal que implementa una intervención digital de prevención del VIH en las organizaciones comunitarias. Las entrevistas iluminaron la necesidad de intervenciones como Keep It Up! para hombres jóvenes que tienen sexo con hombres y detalló la necesidad de estrategias adicionales para ayudar a las organizaciones comunitarias que no están familiarizadas con la implementación de intervenciones de salud digitales.

Innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care in the U.S.: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing, diagnosis, and linkage-to-care in the U.S. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad search strategy was employed in three literature databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A team of master's and Ph.D.-level researchers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data using COVIDENCE software in pairs with consensus performed by a senior member of the team. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Frequency of determinants across studies was mapped according to CFIR, valence, study design, delivery setting, unit of analysis, population of interest, region of the U.S., and year. RESULTS: We identified 1,739 implementation and innovation determinants from 186 articles. Most determinants were for HIV testing rather than linkage-to-care. Most determinants were identified in the inner setting and individuals domains of CFIR, with the fewest identified in the process and innovations domains. Determinants of providers were only slightly more frequently identified than determinants of recipients. However, determinants of organizations and systems were rarely identified. CONCLUSION: This review provides a synthesis of innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care using the most-cited implementation science (IS) framework, CFIR. This synthesis enables the larger field of HIV science to utilize IS in efforts to end the HIV epidemic and positions IS to consider the application of IS frameworks to fields like HIV.

A mixed-methods approach to assessing implementers' readiness to adopt digital health interventions (RADHI).

BACKGROUND: Despite being the primary setting for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men (MSM) since the start of the epidemic, community-based organizations (CBOs) struggle to reach this historically stigmatized and largely hidden population with face-to-face interventions. HIV researchers have readily turned to the internet to deliver critical HIV education to this group, with evidence of high effectiveness and acceptability across studies. However, implementation outside of research contexts has been limited and not well studied. We aimed to assess HIV CBOs' readiness to adopt digital health interventions and identify contextual factors that may contribute to differing levels of readiness. METHODS: We recruited 22 CBOs across the US through a pragmatic request-for-proposals process to deliver Keep It Up! (KIU!), an evidence-based eHealth HIV prevention program. We used mixed methods to examine CBO readiness to adopt digital health interventions (RADHI). Before implementation, CBO staff completed a 5-item RADHI scale (scored 0-4) that demonstrated concurrent and predictive validity. We interviewed CBO staff using semi-structured questions guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and compared RADHI score groups on determinants identified from the interviews. RESULTS: Eighty-five staff (range = 1-10 per CBO) completed the RADHI. On average, CBOs reported moderate-to-great readiness (2.74) to adopt KIU!. High RADHI CBOs thought KIU! was a top priority and an innovative program complementary to their existing approaches for their clients. Low RADHI CBOs expressed concerns that KIU! could be a cultural mismatch for their clients, was lower priority than existing programs and services, relied on clients' own motivation, and might not be suitable for clients with disabilities. Value, appeal, and limitations did not differ by RADHI group. CONCLUSIONS: While HIV CBOs are excited for the opportunities and advantages of digital interventions, additional pre-implementation and implementation support may be needed to increase perceived value and usability for different client populations. Addressing these limitations is critical to effective digital prevention interventions for HIV and other domains such as mental health, chronic disease management, and transitions in care. Future research can utilize our novel, validated measure of CBOs' readiness to adopt digital health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03896776, clinicaltrials.gov, 1 April 2019.

Establishing evidence criteria for implementation strategies in the US: a Delphi study for HIV services.

BACKGROUND: There are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommending implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Tool, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting HIV-specific implementation strategies. METHODS: We developed the Best Practices Tool from 2022-2023 in three phases. (1) We developed a draft tool and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. We purposively selected and recruited by email interview participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. (2) The tool was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate; and the tool and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the tool to a set of research studies assessing implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of evidence-based HIV interventions to assess reliable application of the tool and criteria. RESULTS: Our initial literature review yielded existing tools for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level tool, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains - research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity - and four evidence levels - best, promising, more evidence needed, and harmful. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a tool to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although specific to HIV in the US, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among people who use drugs: a qualitative scoping review of implementation determinants and change methods.

Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV transmission is suboptimal in the United States, particularly among people who use drugs (PWUD). PrEP research among PWUD is scarce, and the factors that impact implementation are largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators), as well as the change methods (implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions) that have been evaluated to increase PrEP implementation and use among PWUD. We identified 32 peer-reviewed articles assessing determinants and five that evaluated change methods. Determinants were coded using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which is an established framework to understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators associated with implementation. Findings indicate that most research was conducted among PrEP recipients (i.e., patients), focusing on awareness and willingness to use PrEP, with less focus on factors impacting clinicians and service delivery systems. Moreover, very few change methods have been evaluated to improve clinician adoption and adherence to CDC guidelines for PrEP provision and/or recipient uptake and adherence to PrEP. Future research is needed that focuses on factors impacting implementation from a clinician standpoint as well as innovative change methods to increase PrEP awareness, reach, adoption, and sustained adherence to guidelines. Implementation Science offers a wealth of knowledge to speed up the effort to end the HIV epidemic in the United States.

Improving Delivery and Use of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in the US: A Systematic Review of Implementation Strategies and Adjunctive Interventions.

Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV transmission is suboptimal in the United States. To date, the literature has focused on identifying determinants of PrEP use, with a lesser focus on developing and testing change methods to improve PrEP implementation. Moreover, the change methods available for improving the uptake and sustained use of PrEP have not been systematically categorized. To summarize the state of the literature, we conducted a systematic review of the implementation strategies used to improve PrEP implementation among delivery systems and providers, as well as the adjunctive interventions used to improve the uptake and persistent adherence to PrEP among patients. Between November 2020 and January 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer reviewed articles. We identified 44 change methods (18 implementation strategies and 26 adjunctive interventions) across a variety of clinical and community-based service settings. We coded implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions in accordance with established taxonomies and reporting guidelines. Most studies focused on improving patient adherence to PrEP and most conducted pilot trials. Just over one-third of included studies demonstrated a positive effect on outcomes. In order to end the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in the U.S., future, large scale HIV prevention research is needed that develops and evaluates implementation strategies and adjunctive interventions for target populations disproportionately affected by HIV.

Establishing Evidence Criteria for Implementation Strategies: A Delphi Study for HIV Services.

Background: There are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommend implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Rubric, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies, in the context of HIV. Methods: We developed the Best Practices Rubric from 2022-2023 in three phases. (1) We purposively selected and recruited by email participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. We developed a draft rubric and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. (2) The rubric was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate, and the rubric and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the rubric to a set of research studies assessing 18 implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, an HIV prevention medication, to assess reliable application of the rubric and criteria. Results: Our initial literature review yielded existing rubrics and criteria for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level rubric, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains - research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity - and four evidence levels - best practice, promising practice, more evidence needed, and harmful practices. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies. Conclusions: We developed a rubric to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although the rubric is specific to HIV, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.

A Systematic Review of Implementation Research on Determinants and Strategies of Effective HIV Interventions for Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of HIV cases in the United States despite representing ∼5% of the adult population. Delivery and use of existing and highly effective HIV prevention and treatment strategies remain suboptimal among MSM. To summarize the state of the science, we systematically review implementation determinants and strategies of HIV-related health interventions using implementation science frameworks. Research on implementation barriers has focused predominantly on characteristics of individual recipients (e.g., ethnicity, age, drug use) and less so on deliverers (e.g., nurses, physicians), with little focus on system-level factors. Similarly, most strategies target recipients to influence their uptake and adherence, rather than improving and supporting implementation systems. HIV implementation research is burgeoning; future research is needed to broaden the examination of barriers at the provider and system levels, as well as expand knowledge on how to match strategies to barriers-particularly to address stigma. Collaboration and coordination among federal, state, and local public health agencies; community-based organizations; health care providers; and scientists are important for successful implementation of HIV-related health innovations.

Implementation determinants of HIV Self-Testing among young sexual minority men.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) has shown the potential for reaching people with heightened vulnerability to HIV, including young sexual minority men (YSMM), yet implementation of HIVST among YSMM aged 17-24 is scarce as a prevention method. Moreover, despite the consistent finding that offering HIVST increases HIV testing rates, barriers remain that need to be reduced in order to maximize the potential of this biomedical technology. Such information is necessary to direct implementation efforts to increase HIVST among YSMM, including HIV counseling and linkage to care. The current study was therefore intended to investigate perspectives for HIVST among YSMM and how HIVST can be marketed to increase implementation. METHODS: Between March and September 2020, we enrolled 41 YSMM to participate in one of nine online synchronous focus group discussions about their general experience with HIV preventive services. Guided by the Consolidated Framework (CFIR) for Implementation Research, we explored YSMM perspectives on facilitators and barriers to HIVST implementation. Data were analyzed using a deductive thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Many participants had never used HIVST before their participation in this study (n = 30; 73.2%). Qualitative results exhibited a variety of implementation determinants across the five CFIR 2.0 domains. Barriers included concerns about the format in which the testing materials would be provided (i.e., nature of packaging) and about the method in which the sample would need to be collected, particularly for those who had the testing kit mailed to their home address. These reservations were nested in the fear of unwanted disclosure of their sexual behavior, namely among the respondents who had to cohabitate with family due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants also discussed the limited local resources for HIVST. Many participants suggested programs that could be implemented to support HIVST, such as collaborations with trusted community agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding YSMM' perspectives of HIVST may help identify implementation deficiencies within the delivery system and aid the development of implementation strategies to promote reach of HIVST.

Identification of Determinants and Implementation Strategies to Increase Long-Acting Injectable PrEP for HIV Prevention Among Latino Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).

BACKGROUND: Latino men who have sex with men (LMSM) are disproportionally affected by HIV infections in the USA. The uptake rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention has remained low among LMSM. Long-acting injectable PrEP (LAI-PrEP) may have the potential to improve structural, behavioral, and cognitive barriers to adherence. Given the potential benefits of LAI-PrEP and the limited data with this population, the aim of our study was to explore experiences and attitudes of LAI-PrEP among LMSM and identify implementation barriers compared to the standard oral presentation, align proposed implementation strategies, and propose outcomes to monitor and assess impact. METHODS: In this qualitative study, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we explored health care providers perspectives on facilitators and barriers to LAI-PrEP implementation strategies for LMSM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Fear of immigration policies, ability to conceal PrEP medication, health insurance coverage, health information fatigue, lack of culturally adapted information, and provider's lack of knowledge were among the main barriers to LAI-PrEP. Most providers discussed the need for adapted and/or tailored training materials for and suggested designing marketing materials and specific clinical recommendations for LAI-PrEP. CONCLUSION: In order to ensure an effective adaptation process that encompasses local and national goals of HIV prevention, future interventions should be designed in a way that incorporates culturally relevant information for LMSM. This study provides an implementation research logic model to guide future studies.

Categorising implementation determinants and strategies within the US HIV implementation literature: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decreased rates of new infections, HIV/AIDS continues to impact certain US populations. In order to achieve the goals laid out in the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) in the US initiative, implementation science is needed to expand the sustained use of effective prevention and treatment interventions, particularly among priority populations at risk for and living with HIV/AIDS. Over 200 HIV-related implementation studies have been funded by the US National Institutes of Health. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the literature identifying implementation determinants (barriers and facilitators) and categorising implementation strategies across the continuum of HIV prevention and care in the USA is appropriate and needed to enhance current knowledge and help achieve the goals laid out in the EHE national strategic plan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad database search strategy of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science was conducted to capture implementation-related studies along the HIV prevention and care continuum. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were: conducted in the USA, published after the year 2000, written in English, related to HIV/AIDS, focused on outcomes related to dissemination and implementation (ie, did not test/evaluate/explore implementation determinants or strategies) and were behavioural studies (ie, not basic science). We plan to conduct three systematic reviews to identify and categorise determinants and strategies associated with three HIV focus areas: pre-exposure prophylaxis, testing/diagnosing and linkage to care, and treatment. Determinants will be coded according to an adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0. Implementation strategies and outcomes will be categorised in accordance with existing taxonomies and frameworks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable. No original data will be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and via online tools. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021233089.

Determinants of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in Transgender Populations: A Qualitative Scoping Review.

We conducted a scoping review of contextual factors impeding uptake and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis in transgender communities as an in-depth analysis of the transgender population within a previously published systematic review. Using a machine learning screening process, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, the initial systematic review identified 353 articles for analysis. These articles were peer-reviewed, implementation-related studies of PrEP in the U.S. published after 2000. Twenty-two articles were identified in this search as transgender related. An additional eleven articles were identified through citations of these twenty-two articles, resulting in thirty-three articles in the current analysis. These thirty-three articles were qualitatively coded in NVivo using adapted constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as individual codes. Codes were thematically assessed. We point to barriers of implementing PrEP, including lack of intentional dissemination efforts and patience assistance, structural factors, including sex work, racism, and access to gender affirming health care, and lack of provider training. Finally, over 60% of articles lumped cisgender men who have sex with men with trans women. Such articles included sub-samples of transgender individuals that were not representative. We point to areas of growth for the field in this regard.

RESUMEN: En este revisión de alcance, examinamos los factores contextuales que impiden la adopción y el cumplimiento de la profilaxis previa a la exposición en las comunidades transgénero. Este revisión sistemática se formó a partir de una revisión sistemática más grande. Utilizando un proceso de selección de aprendizaje automático, filtración de los titulus y examines, y revision del texto complete, el primer revisión sistemática identificó 353 artículos por el analisis. Estes artículos fueron estudios revisados por pares, relacionados con la implementación de la PrEP en los EE.UU. publicados despues de 2000. Veintidós artículos se identificaron en esta b?squeda como relacionados con personas transgénero. Se identificaron once artículos adicionales a través de citas de estos veintidós artículos, lo que resultó en treinta y tres artículos en el análisis actual. Estos treinta y tres artículos fueron codificados cualitativamente en NVivo utilizando construcciones adaptadas del Marco Consolidado para la Investigación de Implementación (CFIR) como códigos individuales. Los códigos fueron evaluados temáticamente. Señalamos las barreras de la implementación de la PrEP, como la falta de esfuerzos intencionales de difusión y asistencia al paciente, las barreras estructurales como el trabajo sexual, el racism, y el acceso a la salud de afirmación de género, y la falta del entrenamiento de los doctores. Finalmente, más de sesenta por ciento de los artículos tuvieron submuestras de personas transgénero que no eran representativas. Se?alamos áreas de crecimiento para el campo en este sentido.

Minority Stress, Coping, and Transgender Youth in Schools-Results from the Resilience and Transgender Youth Study.

BACKGROUND: Transgender youth report high rates of negative experiences in schools. Using a lens of minority stress, this study sought to examine in-school experiences of transgender youth to understand youth coping and to identify key opportunities for improving school environments for transgender youth. METHODS: Participants included 41 youth across 33 in-depth interviews (Mage  = 21.7) and two focus groups (N = 8; Mage  = 17.3). Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Themes related to stress, coping, and facilitators/barriers to stress/coping were derived and coded. RESULTS: Distal stressors, such as structural discrimination and prejudice events, were found to contribute to the exclusion of transgender youth from school life, while proximal stressors, such as concealment and expectations of rejection, reinforced transgender youth's feelings of personal isolation. Participants expressed coping with both challenges by advocating for inclusion through direct action with teachers and administrators and seeking/finding connection with trusted staff and peers. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that creating safe and supportive environments at school for transgender youth is an attainable goal, as all identified barriers to inclusivity and connection were modifiable. By considering the needs of transgender youth in policies and programming, schools may improve climate for and wellbeing of transgender students.