Mental health care research priorities for trans and gender-diverse young people: Findings from community consultations on improving trauma-related mental health care for trans and gender-diverse communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research on mental health care with trans and gender-diverse (TGD) people presents unique challenges as it brings together two historically complex contexts for TGD communities. While ethical standards and recommendations for research do exist (e.g. Bauer et al., Citation2019; Puckett et al., Citation2023, Veale et al., Citation2022), it is only recently that there has been a turn toward community-engaged research, with communities calling for research led by TGD people and focused on community goals and needs.Method This article presents findings from a qualitative, community-based project on TGD young people’s priorities for future research related to improving trauma-related mental health care. Thirty-four participants engaged across two data collection activities: in-person workshops; and online, semi-structured interviews. Eligibility criteria included: identifying as trans or gender-diverse; being aged 19–30 and having experience accessing, attending, or needing trauma-related mental health supports in British Columbia. Participants shared their experiences with trauma-related mental health care and their priorities for improving mental health care more broadly for TGD communities.Results Research priorities included: Practitioner Education and Training; Indigenous Perspectives; Addressing Racism and Cultural Differences; Impact of Geography; Co-Occurring Needs; Understanding Trauma; Disability, Autism, and Neurodivergence; Pathways to Care; and Approaches to Therapy. Participants emphasized that research should be led by TGD communities who are impacted by the research and needs to be based on community priorities.Discussion These findings provide novel insight from young TGD people into community priorities that can guide future research on mental health care. Findings suggest that future researchers be strategic in building projects that shift the focus from research on TGD people to research that focuses on mental health practitioners, practice approaches, and frameworks that acknowledge the multifaceted lived experiences of TGD people. Future research should pushback against deficit-focused narratives and an over-focus on harm experienced by TGD people.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".