Sexual Health of US Transgender Boys, Nonbinary Youth, and Cisgender Girls
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Research documenting the pregnancy experiences of transgender boys and nonbinary youth assigned female at birth (AFAB) in the US is lacking. Objective: To examine AFAB youth sexual health indicators by gender. Design, Setting, Participants: Self-reported data were collected cross-sectionally from 2018 through 2020. Initial analyses were conducted in 2023 and analyses were finalized in September 2024. The study took place online, across the 50 US states and Washington, DC. Eligible participants were 14 to 16 years old, read English, and had internet access. Main Outcome: Sexual health (ie, self-reported pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections [STIs] lifetime prevalence, condom use, and use of other forms of birth control at last penile-vaginal or penile-anal sex). Results: Based on weighted data (sample sizes are unweighted), 2109 cisgender girls, 348 transgender boys, and 458 nonbinary AFAB youth were included in analyses. There were 44 transgender boys (14%; 95% CI, 9.4-20.1; P = .24), 67 AFAB nonbinary youth (14%; 95% CI, 10.8-18.8; P = .18), and 397 cisgender girls (18%; 95% CI, 16.0-19.7) who reported ever having penile-vaginal sex. Rates for penile-anal sex were also similar by gender (4% to 6%). Lifetime pregnancy rates were higher for transgender boys (5 [9%]; 95% CI, 2.7-27.1; P = .23) than cisgender (18 [4%]; 95% CI, 2.5-7.1) girls, although not statistically significantly so. Pregnancy rates were similar for AFAB nonbinary youth (5 [5%]; 95% CI, 1.9-13.3; P = .73) compared with cisgender girls. Lifetime STI rates were universally low for all AFAB youth (0.5% to 2.0%). Mean age at first penile-vaginal sex was lower for AFAB nonbinary youth (mean age, 13.6 years; SE, 0.4; P = .003) and transgender boys (mean age, 13.9 years; SE, 0.3; P = .06) compared with cisgender girls (mean age, 14.4 years; SE, 0.1). Condom use at last penile-anal or penile-vaginal sex for transgender boys (24 [16%]; 95% CI, 9.5-27.0; P < .001) and AFAB nonbinary youth (33 [24%]; 95% CI, 16.4-34.2; P < .001) was half that of cisgender girls (245 [49%]; 95% CI, 44.1-54.2). Use of birth control other than condoms at last sex was lower for AFAB nonbinary youth (18 [28%]; 95% CI, 16.2-44.5; P = .14), but similar for transgender boys (20 [42%]; 95% CI, 23.4-62.4; P = .69) compared with cisgender girls (167 [44%]; 95% CI, 38.6-50.0). Conclusion and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of sexual health among AFAB youth with a diversity of gender identities, transgender boys were more likely, and nonbinary youth, similarly likely, as cisgender girls to be pregnant during adolescence. Even though overall rates of penile-vaginal sex were similar for transgender boys and AFAB nonbinary youth compared with cisgender girls, half as many transgender boys and AFAB nonbinary youth who had this type of sex used a condom at last sex compared with cisgender girls. As with cisgender girls, transgender boys and AFAB nonbinary youth need to be engaged in affirming and inclusive sexual health education.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».