Opportunities for incorporating intersectionality into biomedical informatics.

Many approaches in biomedical informatics (BMI) rely on the ability to define, gather, and manipulate biomedical data to support health through a cyclical research-practice lifecycle. Researchers within this field are often fortunate to work closely with healthcare and public health systems to influence data generation and capture and have access to a vast amount of biomedical data. Many informaticists also have the expertise to engage with stakeholders, develop new methods and applications, and influence policy. However, research and policy that explicitly seeks to address the systemic drivers of health would more effectively support health. Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that can facilitate such research. It holds that individual human experiences reflect larger socio-structural level systems of privilege and oppression, and cannot be truly understood if these systems are examined in isolation. Intersectionality explicitly accounts for the interrelated nature of systems of privilege and oppression, providing a lens through which to examine and challenge inequities. In this paper, we propose intersectionality as an intervention into how we conduct BMI research. We begin by discussing intersectionality's history and core principles as they apply to BMI. We then elaborate on the potential for intersectionality to stimulate BMI research. Specifically, we posit that our efforts in BMI to improve health should address intersectionality's five key considerations: (1) systems of privilege and oppression that shape health; (2) the interrelated nature of upstream health drivers; (3) the nuances of health outcomes within groups; (4) the problematic and power-laden nature of categories that we assign to people in research and in society; and (5) research to inform and support social change.

Technology for transgender healthcare: Access, precarity & community care.

While much of the transgender health literature has focused on poor health outcomes, less research has examined how trans people find reliable information on, and actually go about accessing, gender-affirming healthcare. Through qualitative interviews with creators of trans technologies, that is, technologies designed to address problems that trans people face, we found that digital technologies have become important tools for proliferating access to gender-affirming care and related health information. We found that technologists often employed different processes for creating their technologies, but they coalesced around the goal of enabling and increasing access to gender-affirming care. Creators of trans health technologies also encountered precarious conditions for creating and maintaining their technologies, including regional gaps left by national resources focused on the US east and west coasts. Findings demonstrated that trans tech creators were motivated to create and maintain these technologies as a means of caring for one another and forming trans communities in spite of the precarious conditions trans people face living under systemic oppression.

How Do Prescribing Clinicians Obtain Consent to Initiate Gender-Affirming Hormones?

Purpose: Multiple consent models exist for initiating gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). Our study aim was to examine the variety of approaches utilized by clinicians. Methods: Online and in-person recruitment of clinicians involved in gender-affirming care was undertaken from June 2019 through March 2020. Participants completed an online survey. Results: Of the 175 respondents, 148 prescribed GAHT. Sixty-one (41.2%) prescribed to adults only, 11 (7.4%) to minors only, and 76 (51.4%) prescribed to adults and minors. Of those who prescribed to adults, more than half (n=74, 54.4%) utilized a written consent model, one-fourth only verbal consent (n=33, 24.3%), and one-fifth required an additional mental health assessment (MHA) (n=29, 21.3%). Of those prescribing to minors, most required either written consent (n=39, 44.8%) or an additional MHA (n=35, 40.2%). Only 11 (12.6%) utilized only verbal consent for minors. Rationales provided for requiring an additional MHA in adults included protection from litigation, lack of competence in assessing psychosocial readiness for GAHT, and believing that this is the best way to ensure the patient has processed the information. Practicing in multidisciplinary clinics was associated with not requiring an MHA for adult GAHT. Conclusion: Clinicians across fields are utilizing different models to provide the same treatment, with varying rationales for the same model. As a result, patients receive nonstandard access to care despite similar clinical presentations. Our study highlights an important area for further improvement in GAHT care.