Waiting for transgender care and its effects on health and equality: a mixed-methods population study in the Netherlands.

Background: Access to gender-affirming medical care has life-saving effects on transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals. An increasing number of TGD individuals seek care which led to waiting times of years. We assessed the duration and effects of excessive waiting for gender-affirming care. Methods: In this mixed-methods cross-sectional population study, conducted in the Netherlands between June and August 2019, all TGD individuals with experiences with receiving/applying for gender-affirming medical care could participate. Data of participants waiting for care was primarily analyzed. Demographic characteristics and requested care (multiple-choice questions) and the effects of waiting on health were surveyed (open-ended questions). Descriptive statistics were calculated per treatment, and differences in participant characteristics between those waiting for and already in care were assessed through Chi squared tests and post-hoc testing of residuals. Open text answers were thematically analyzed. Findings: Of all 975 participants, 431 (44.2%) waited for gender-affirming medical care. For 10 out of 20 treatment modalities, the median waiting period was more than a year. Participants already in care were on average higher educated and less-frequently non-binary. Subjective effects of waiting were (very) negative for most treatments. Qualitative findings showed that long waiting was associated with a range of psychosocial distress, poorer health, increasing healthcare consumption, and increased inequality between TGD individuals. Interpretation: Findings confirm that TGD individuals encounter long waiting times in multiple stages of their gender-affirming medical care. Waiting affects both physical and psychosocial health. Individual resilience and resources can mitigate these experiences, which increase inequality within this already marginalized group. Funding: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands and Zorgverzekeraars Nederland (Healthcare Insurers Netherlands).

"I Should've Been Able to Decide for Myself, but I Didn't Want to Be Left Alone." A Qualitative Interview Study of Clients' Ethical Challenges and Norms Regarding Decision-Making in Gender-Affirming Medical Care.

This qualitative study aimed to map and provide insight into the ethical challenges and norms of adult transgender and gender diverse (TGD) clients in gender-affirming medical care (GAMC). By doing so, we seek to make an empirical and constructive contribution to the dialogue on and moral inquiry into what good decision-making in GAMC should entail. We conducted 10 semi-structured interviews with adult Dutch TGD people who received GAMC. In our thematic analysis, we (1) included both ethical challenges and norms, (2) differentiated between explicit and implicit ethical challenges and norms, and (3) ascertained the specific context in which the latter emerged. We identified the following themes: (1) clients should be in the lead, (2) harm should be prevented, and (3) the decision-making process should be attuned to the individual client. These themes arose in the context of (1) a precarious client-clinician relationship and (2) distinct characteristics of GAMC. Our findings highlight divergent and dynamic decisional challenges and normative views-both within individual clients and among them. We conclude that there is no single ideal model of good decision-making in GAMC and argue that elucidating and jointly deliberating on decisional norms and challenges should be an inherent part of co-constructing good decision-making.

GenderJourney: Participatory development of an ethics support tool to foster dialogue and reflection on shared decision-making in gender-affirming medical care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and reflect on the development process of GenderJourney: an ethics support tool that seeks to foster (dialogue and reflection on) shared decision-making (SDM) in gender-affirming medical care (GAMC). METHODS: Part of a larger project, this study used a participatory design. We included transgender and gender diverse (TGD) clients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) throughout the study in co-creation workshops. In an iterative process, we (1) established stakeholders' needs, (2) reached a consensus on the aims, content, and design, (3) developed and tested successive renditions, and (4) presented the final version of the tool. RESULTS: The final tool aims to (A) elucidate the client's care request and corresponding treatment preferences, (B) foster an explicit dialogue between TGD client and HCP about expected/preferred decisional roles and collaboration, (C) stimulate a systematic joint reflection on and handling of SDM-related ethical challenges. CONCLUSION: The GenderJourney provides non-directive ethics support to jointly reflect on and foster good SDM, including its inherent ethical challenges. Future studies should focus on its implementation and actual contribution to good SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GenderJourney may be used in GAMC to support the dialogue on what good SDM entails and the identification, discussion, and handling of SDM-related ethical challenges.

Sharing decisions amid uncertainties: a qualitative interview study of healthcare professionals' ethical challenges and norms regarding decision-making in gender-affirming medical care.

BACKGROUND: In gender-affirming medical care (GAMC), ethical challenges in decision-making are ubiquitous. These challenges are becoming more pressing due to exponentially increasing referrals, politico-legal contestation, and divergent normative views regarding decisional roles and models. Little is known, however, about what ethical challenges related to decision-making healthcare professionals (HCPs) themselves face in their daily work in GAMC and how these relate to, for example, the subjective nature of Gender Incongruence (GI), the multidisciplinary character of GAMC and the role HCPs play in assessing GI and eligibility for interventions. Given the relevance and urgency of these questions, we conducted a qualitative study among HCPs providing GAMC to transgender adults in the Netherlands. METHODS: In this qualitative research, we conducted 11 semi-structured interviews between May 2020 and February 2021 with HCPs (six mental health professionals, two HCPs in endocrinology, two in plastic surgery, and one in nursing) working in two distinct GAMC settings. We purposively sampled for professional background and years of experience in GAMC. We analyzed our interview data using thematic analysis. As some respondents were more inclined to speak about what should or ought to be done to arrive at good or right decision-making, we identified both ethical challenges and norms. Furthermore, in our analysis, we differentiated between respondents' explicit and implicit ethical challenges and norms and ascertained the specific context in which these challenges emerged. RESULTS: Respondents' ethical challenges and norms centered on (1) dividing and defining decisional roles and bounds, (2) negotiating decision-making in a (multidisciplinary) team, and (3) navigating various decision-making temporalities. These themes arose in the context of uncertainties regarding (1) GAMC's guidelines, evidence, and outcomes, as well as (2) the boundaries and assessment of GI. CONCLUSIONS: This interview study provides detailed empirical insight into both the explicit and implicit ethical challenges that HCPs experience and their ethical norms regarding decision-making. It also describes how uncertainties and (implicit) normativities concerning GAMC and GI pre-structure the moral environment in which these challenges and norms manifest. We provide normative reflections and recommendations on handling these ethical challenges in a way that is sensitive to the context in which they arise.