RESUMO
Transgender women are among the populations at highest risk for HIV in the USA and have elevated risk for intimate partner violence (IPV). There is an urgent need for integrated HIV-IPV prevention interventions for transgender women. Using qualitative methods, we explored transgender women's lived experiences of IPV and the relationship between IPV and HIV risk. Using thematic analysis, we identified four key concepts that warrant inclusion in the development of models for IPV and HIV interventions: (1) considering the boundaries of IPV; (2) normalising expectations of chronic violence; (3) relationship safety; (4) calls for trans-affirming and empowering services.
Assuntos
Infecções por HIV , Violência por Parceiro Íntimo , Pessoas Transgênero , Humanos , Feminino , Violência por Parceiro Íntimo/prevenção & controle , Infecções por HIV/prevenção & controle , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people who use drugs report barriers to accessing substance use treatment, including provider mistreatment. Little research has explored the multilevel factors that shape the capacity of substance use treatment professionals to provide gender-affirmative care (i.e., care that respects and affirms one's gender) to TGD people. METHODS: From October 2021 to March 2022, substance use treatment and harm reduction professionals in Rhode Island were surveyed (N = 101) and qualitatively interviewed (N = 19) about the provision of substance use treatment-related services to TGD people. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively; differences were examined using Fisher exact tests (p < 0.05). Qualitative interviews were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported limited exposure to TGD people and lacked training on TGD health, which resulted in limited cultural and clinical competency and low self-efficacy in their ability to care for TGD people. Participants also highlighted structural factors (e.g., non-inclusive intake forms, limited availability of gender-inclusive ancillary community services) that restricted their ability to provide effective and affirming care to TGD people. Some participants also reported a "gender blind" ethos at their institutions- described by some as ignoring the potential impact of TGD peoples' unique experiences on their substance use and ability to benefit from treatment. While some perceived gender blindness as problematic, others believed this approach enabled substance use treatment professionals to consider all the identities and needs that patients/clients may have. Despite differences in treatment approaches, most participants agreed that their workplaces could benefit from efforts to create a safe and affirming space for people who use drugs, particularly TGD patients/clients. CONCLUSION: Results underscore how structural, interpersonal, and individual factors contributed to barriers in the provision of gender-affirmative substance use-related care for TGD people. Findings can inform efforts to increase the capacity of providers to deliver gender-affirmative substance use-related services, which is essential to supporting the recovery goals of TGD people.