Mental health of transgender youth in care at an adolescent urban community health center: A matched retrospective cohort study

By S. Reisner, Ralph Vetters, M. Leclerc, S. Zaslow, Sarah G Wolfrum, Daniel E Shumer, M. Mimiaga. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2015

626 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose Transgender youth represent a vulnerable population at risk for negative mental health outcomes including depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality. Limited data exists to compare the mental health of transgender adolescents and emerging adults to cisgender youth accessing community-based clinical services; the current study aimed to fill this gap. Methods A retrospective cohort study of electronic health record (EHR) data from 180 transgender patients age 12–29 years seen between 2002–2011 at a Boston-based community health center was performed. The 106 female-to-male (FTM) and 74 male-to-female (MTF) patients were matched on gender identity, age, visit date, and race/ethnicity to cisgender controls. Mental health outcomes were extracted and analyzed using conditional logistic regression models. Logistic regression models compared FTM to MTF youth on mental health outcomes. Results The sample (n=360) had a mean age of 19.6 (SD=3.0); 43% white, 33% racial/ethnic minority, and 24% race/ethnicity unknown. Compared to cisgender matched controls, transgender youth had a two- to three-fold increased risk of depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, self-harm without lethal intent, and both inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment (all p<0.05). No statistically significant differences in mental health outcomes were observed comparing FTM and MTF patients, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and hormone use. Conclusions Transgender youth were found to have a disparity in negative mental health outcomes compared to cisgender youth, with equally high burden in FTM and MTF patients. Identifying gender identity differences in clinical settings and providing appropriate services and supports are important steps in addressing this disparity.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b6c38259b8e31ab23ab7e175d493eb177b0186e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

  1. N. Millet
  2. L. Edwards-Leeper
  3. John R. Crawford
  4. Florence Ashley
  5. J. Arcelus
  6. L. Chevalier
  7. M. Gettinger
  8. J. Longworth

In Social Psychology

  1. N. Millet
  2. John R. Crawford
  3. Florence Ashley
  4. J. Arcelus
  5. M. Gettinger
  6. Katie M. Swanson
  7. W. Bouman
  8. Julie D. Henry

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. N. Millet
  2. Florence Ashley
  3. J. Arcelus
  4. M. Gettinger
  5. Katie M. Swanson

Citations in the corpus