The Role of the Athletic Trainer in Providing Care to Transgender and Gender Diverse Patients: Considerations for Medical Affirmation - Part II.

Recently, there has been an increase in media attention surrounding transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals between discriminatory legislation efforts and changing participation policies within organized sports. These changes and the historical lack of competence and education regarding the transgender patient population have resulted in sub-par patient care, and a misunderstanding of the athletic trainer's (AT) role within the healthcare and compliance systems. This literature review is the second part of a two-paper series and the objective of this paper was to educate ATs on the processes relevant to medical affirmation including compliance considerations regarding medical eligibility and to establish the AT's role. The gender affirmation framework includes social and legal components which are discussed in part one of this literature, and the medical component is thoroughly discussed in part two. AT's and all health care providers involved in the patient care of TGD individuals should work collaboratively on an interprofessional care team and have a general knowledge of the gender affirmation process including GAHT, surgical options, known risks and complications, and the general health needs of TGD patients. By being more knowledgeable, ATs are uniquely positioned to help reduce health and healthcare disparities as they are point-of-care providers as well as members of the interprofessional care team. Furthermore, ATs can use their knowledge to facilitate medical compliance and eligibility within the evolving policies of sporting organizations.

The Role of the Athletic Trainer in Treating Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Patients: Foundational Knowledge and Disparities - Part I.

Transgender and Gender Diverse (TGD) patients experience discrimination, harassment, marginalization, and minority stress at greater rates than their cisgender counterparts leading to numerous health and healthcare disparities that negatively impact wellbeing and access to quality healthcare.1 While in an opportune position to improve health equity for TGD patients under their care, many athletic trainers (ATs) report having little to no formal education on TGD patient care leading to a reduction in self-reported competence. As such, to fill this knowledge gap, the purpose of the first part of this two-part narrative literature review is to 1) provide readers with foundational information and terminology, 2) explore relevant health and healthcare disparities, and 3) identify the role of the AT within an interprofessional care team treating TGD patients.

Sports Medicine Physicians Comfort and Competence in Caring for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Patients and Athletes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore primary care sports medicine physicians' comfort, competence, education, and scope of training in caring for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients/athletes. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Online. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: In total, 4300 e-mails were successfully sent with 252 eligible responses received from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine members. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Previous relationships with TGNC persons; previous relationships with TGNC patients/athletes; frequency of care for TGNC patients/athletes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The participants completed a 38-item tool used to assess perceived comfort and competence treating TGNC patients/athletes. Physicians defined "transgender" and described their thoughts on unfair competitive advantage of transgender athletes. RESULTS: Most participants had worked with a TGNC patient (70.2%, n = 177), but far fewer worked with a TGNC athlete (n = 26.6%, n = 67). Among the participants who provided a definition of transgender (n = 183), only 28.4% (n = 52) of participants were able to correctly define the term, whereas most were able to partially (57.9%, n = 106) characterize the term. The most common mechanisms identified for learning about TGNC patients were reading peer-reviewed journal articles (44.8%, n = 113) and CME (41.3%, n = 104). Those with previous TGNC friend/family, patient, and athlete relationships had a significantly different level of comfort and competence treating TGNC patients/athletes. CONCLUSIONS: Previous care relationships with TGNC strongly influences comfort and perceived competence of primary care sports medicine physicians. Training, from unbiased peer-reviewed sources of data, is critical to improve care for TGNC patients/athletes.

Athletic Trainers' Competence, Education, and Perceptions Regarding Transgender Student-Athlete Patient Care.

CONTEXT: Transgender student-athletes are increasingly participating in sport, requiring athletic trainer (AT) preparedness to care for their needs. OBJECTIVE: To measure ATs' (1) perceived definition of transgender, (2) comfort and competence working with transgender student-athletes, (3) sources of education, (4) perceived legal concerns, and (5) perception of competitive advantage. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Mixed-methods survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Collegiate or university ATs (n = 5537) received an email invitation to participate; the data of 667 ATs were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): A multipart 43-item questionnaire addressing the primary objectives of the study, with other factors that were explored in relation to these objectives to uncover potential influences on their responses. We calculated descriptive statistics, and for open-ended responses, we used the consensual qualitative research tradition. RESULTS: About half (48.1%, n = 321) of the participants agreed they were competent in treating transgender patients, but only 36.0% (n = 240) believed they were competent in practicing collaboratively with an endocrinologist in the drug-screening processes. Fewer than half (45.6%, n = 304) of participants felt they were competent in using appropriate terminology relating to transgender patients. The ATs disagreed when asked if they were competent regarding counseling transgender patients about the effects of hormone replacement therapy on sport participation (48.1%, n = 321) or on mental health concerns (40.3%, n = 269). Participants learned most frequently from media outlets (35.2%, n = 235) or personal experiences with family, friends, or themselves (33.7%, n = 225), yet 35.1% (n = 243) received no education in caring for transgender patients. Many ATs (41.2%, n = 278) believed that transgender female student-athletes had a competitive advantage. In contrast, 6.6% (n = 44) of participants indicated that transgender male student-athletes had a competitive advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Although collegiate ATs generally felt competent in treating transgender patients, they did not feel capable of addressing specific aspects of transgender patients' health care needs. Regardless of the resulting perceived unfair advantage, ATs must be aware of the regulations and therapeutic effects associated with hormone-related therapy for transgender student-athletes.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Patients: Collegiate Athletic Trainers' Perceptions.

CONTEXT: Research suggests that patients who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) are at risk for certain conditions and denied equal access to health care in physician offices compared with their heterosexual counterparts. However, little evidence exists regarding the treatment of LGBTQ student-athlete patients in the athletic training clinic and the role the athletic trainer (AT) plays in these health care experiences. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of ATs treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Web-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1077 collegiate and university ATs completed the survey (5685 e-mails distributed, 1214 surveys started, access rate = 21.4%, completion rate = 88.7%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Demographic information and level of agreement in 3 areas (approach, quality of care, and comfort) were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale. We asked ATs their likeliness of providing guidance to student-athletes about navigating their sexuality generally and as it related to athletic participation, if they thought they provided equal health care to a student-athlete who identified as LGBTQ, how comfortable they were treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients, and how comfortable they thought student-athlete patients would be seeking care from them or from providers in their clinic. RESULTS: Overall, we found differences among groups for sexual orientation, gender, religion, and the existence of interpersonal contact with LGBTQ friends or family for approach, quality of care, and comfort. We also identified 2 main themes indicating ATs' desire for more training and education, specifically in caring for transgender student-athletes and providing patient-centered care with professionalism, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences existed among demographic groups, ATs had a generally positive view of treating LGBTQ student-athlete patients and wanted more training and education on the specific needs of this population.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Athletic Trainers: Collegiate Student-Athletes' Perceptions.

CONTEXT: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) athletic trainers (ATs) face uncertain acceptance in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: To examine the perceptions of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes toward ATs who identified as LGBTQ. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: Web-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 623 (males = 212, females = 403, other = 8; age = 19.7 ± 1.4 years) NCAA student-athletes completed the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed a 19-item survey to assess their perceptions about the appropriateness of, quality of care from, and comfort with ATs who identified as LGBTQ. We asked 10 demographic questions and 2 questions regarding the student-athlete's exposure to individuals who identified as LGBTQ. Five matrix questions had 5 stems each to represent LGBTQ individuals on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and 2 open-ended questions elicited qualitative data. We analyzed characteristics of central tendency to evaluate the level of appropriateness, quality of care, and level of comfort perceived by student-athletes of ATs who identified as LGBTQ. We used Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests for post hoc analyses where appropriate. We used grounded theory to identify themes in the answers to the open-ended questions. RESULTS: Participants indicated they would seek health care and would feel comfortable approaching an AT who identified as LGBTQ. Participants agreed it was appropriate for an LGBTQ AT to work with both male and female sports and did not agree that health care provided by heterosexual and LGBTQ ATs differed. The open-ended responses revealed 4 themes: professionalism, upbringing, situational concerns, and concerns about specific populations that affected their perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the NCAA student-athletes had positive perceptions of ATs who identified as LGBTQ.

Optimal Screening Methods to Detect Cardiac Disorders in Athletes: An Evidence-Based Review.

Reference/Citation: Harmon KG, Zigman M, Drezner JA. The effectiveness of screening history, physical exam, and ECG to detect potentially lethal cardiac disorders in athletes: a systematic review/meta-analysis. J Electrocardiol. 2015;48(3):329-338. CLINICAL QUESTION: Which screening method should be considered best practice to detect potentially lethal cardiac disorders during the preparticipation physical examination (PE) of athletes? DATA SOURCES: The authors completed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and SPORTDiscus from January 1996 to November 2014. The following key words were used individually and in combination: ECG, athlete, screening, pre-participation, history, and physical. A manual review of reference lists and key journals was performed to identify additional studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this review. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected for this analysis involved (1) outcomes of cardiovascular screening in athletes using the history, PE, and electrocardiogram (ECG); (2) history questions and PE based on the American Heart Association recommendations and guidelines; and (3) ECGs interpreted following modern standards. The exclusion criteria were (1) articles not in English, (2) conference abstracts, and (3) clinical commentary articles. Study quality was assessed on a 7-point scale for risk of bias; a score of 7 indicated the highest quality. Articles with potential bias were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data included number and sex of participants, number of true- and false-positives and negatives, type of ECG criteria used, number of cardiac abnormalities, and specific cardiac conditions. The sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate, and positive predictive value of each screening tool were calculated and summarized using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis model. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen articles reporting on 47 137 athletes were fully reviewed. The overall quality of the 15 articles ranged from 5 to 7 on the 7-item assessment scale (ie, participant selection criteria, representative sample, prospective data with at least 1 positive finding, modern ECG criteria used for screening, cardiovascular screening history and PE per American Heart Association guidelines, individual test outcomes reported, and abnormal screening findings evaluated by appropriate diagnostic testing). The athletes (66% males and 34% females) were ethnically and racially diverse, were from several countries, and ranged in age from 5 to 39 years. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening methods were, respectively, ECG, 94% and 93%; history, 20% and 94%; and PE, 9% and 97%. The overall false-positive rate for ECG (6%) was less than that for history (8%) or PE (10%). The positive likelihood ratios of each screening method were 14.8 for ECG, 3.22 for history, and 2.93 for PE. The negative likelihood ratios were 0.055 for ECG, 0.85 for history, and 0.93 for PE. A total of 160 potentially lethal cardiovascular conditions were detected, for a rate of 0.3%, or 1 in 294 patients. The most common conditions were Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (n = 67, 42%), long QT syndrome (n = 18, 11%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 18, 11%), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 11, 7%), coronary artery disease or myocardial ischemia (n = 9, 6%), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (n = 4, 3%). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective strategy to screen athletes for cardiovascular disease was ECG. This test was 5 times more sensitive than history and 10 times more sensitive than PE, and it had a higher positive likelihood ratio, lower negative likelihood ratio, and lower false-positive rate than history or PE. The 12-lead ECG interpreted using modern criteria should be considered the best practice in screening athletes for cardiovascular disease, and the use of history and PE alone as screening tools should be reevaluated.

Orchard Sports Injury Classification System 10.1 Plus: An End-User Study.

The purpose of this study was to establish the level of ease of use and effectiveness of the Orchard Sport Injury Classification System (OSICS) 10.1 Plus for recording injuries and interventions. Three hundred and forty-two (males=148, females=192, no response=2; age=30.9±9.5y; experience=9.1±10.5y) athletic trainers (ATs) in the United States completed the survey. Participants were primarily employed in the secondary school (n=135) or collegiate setting (n=171). Participants entered system includes the OSICS 10.1 to catalog injuries and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to document interventions. Participants completed an 18-item end-user evaluation to assess the ease of use and effectiveness of the OSICS 10.1 Plus (5-point Likert scale). Participants indicated that the OSICS 10.1 Plus is overall easy to use (4.1±0.7pts), easy to enter an injury (4.1±0.8pts), and easy to enter the associated interventions (3.9±0.8pts). Respondents were neutral about whether the OSICS 10.1 Plus matched their current injury (3.5±1.0pts) or intervention (3.5±0.9pts) records. A majority of participants indicated that they could find the injury (281/342, 82.2%) and interventions (225/342, 65.8%) of interest. A majority of respondents (205/342, 60.0%) indicated they would consider using OSICS 10.1 Plus for injury surveillance in clinical practice. The OSICS 10.1 Plus could serve as an effective and useful mechanism for injury surveillance with minor modifications; however, we, as professionals in sports healthcare, need to improve regular medical documentation first so that we are better able to conduct injury surveillance among our patients.