Developing Guidelines for Conducting Stigma Research With Transgender and Nonbinary Individuals: Protocol for Creation of a Trauma-Informed Approach to Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transgender and nonbinary individuals have received increasing attention within HIV research, with studies documenting the pervasive role stigma plays in creating and sustaining health inequities. However, the proliferation of HIV stigma research with this population has also raised concerns about research practices that may unintentionally stigmatize or retraumatize the very communities they are designed to benefit. Conducting stigma research is critical for generating accurate information about HIV epidemiology, risk and protective factors, and intervention strategies for transgender and nonbinary individuals. Yet, little research has directly examined the experiences of transgender and nonbinary individuals when participating in these studies or identified specific research practices (eg, recruitment materials or study framing, choice of specific survey measures, data collection protocols, and researcher behaviors) that may influence study participation, retention, and data quality. Equally important, research has not adequately examined the potential for unintended harm due to emotional distress experienced by participating in such research and what specific strategies might mitigate against potential distressful research experiences. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a set of empirically based trauma-informed guidelines for conducting HIV-related stigma research with transgender and nonbinary individuals to increase researchers' capacity to recruit and retain transgender and nonbinary individuals in HIV-related stigma research, enhance the quality of data collected, and reduce unintentional harm in stigma research methodology. METHODS: The study will engage in primary data collection using both qualitative and quantitative methodology. First, we will use in-depth qualitative interviews with 60 participants representing 3 participant groups: researchers, mental health clinicians, and transgender and nonbinary individuals who have participated in HIV-related and sexual health research. Second, the qualitative findings will be used to develop an initial set of survey items representing a preliminary set of guidelines. Third, we will engage 75 participants in a 3-round modified Delphi method, to refine the guidelines and promote their acceptability among key stakeholders. RESULTS: The study is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health starting in July 2022 and data collection began January 2023. The study's findings underscore the critical importance of adopting a trauma-informed approach to HIV stigma research with transgender and nonbinary individuals. CONCLUSIONS: To make meaningful strides in stigma research, it is imperative to examine experiences of stigma that may happen within the research context and identify strategies for improving data quality and reducing unintentional harm in study recruitment, methodology, implementation, and dissemination. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/66800.
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 | 0.187 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.027 |
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".