Health status of transgender people globally: A systematic review of research on disease burden and correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transgender and gender diverse (trans) health research has grown rapidly, highlighting the need to characterize the scientific evidence base. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed research on disease burden and correlates in trans adolescents and adults over a 20-month period to identify knowledge gaps and assess methodological characteristics including measurement of gender identity, community engagement, and study quality. DATA SOURCES, ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We searched seven databases using terms related to (a) transgender populations and (b) health or disease. Eligible studies were in English, French, or Spanish and reported original quantitative data on mental health or substance use conditions, infectious diseases, or non-communicable conditions in at least 25 trans individuals aged 15+. Quality assessment was performed in duplicate on a 10% sample of articles and findings were summarized using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The 328 included studies were conducted in 45 countries, with most from North America (54%) and limited research from South Asia (3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (3%), and the Middle East and North Africa (2%). Most studies used cross-sectional designs (73%) and convenience sampling (65%). Only 30% of studies reported any form of community engagement. Mental health and substance use disorders were the most studied area (77% of studies) and non-communicable conditions the least (16%). Available data indicated that trans populations experience high disease burden with considerable heterogeneity within and across settings. Of 39 articles assessed for quality, 80% were rated as fair, 18% as poor, and 3% as good quality. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Geographic, gender-specific, and topical gaps remain in trans health, but we found more research from African countries, with transmasculine people, and on non-communicable conditions than previous syntheses. Areas for growth in trans health research include community engagement, non-binary health, chronic and age-related conditions, and health determinants. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021234043.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".