4 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2024
    1. nterviews occurred between June and November 2020 via Zoom and lasted one-hour. Except for one interview, tworesearchers interviewed each participant, one as the primary interviewer following the interview guide and the otherone asking clarifying questions. During the first half of the interview, we asked participants to “Tell us about a timewhen you had an interaction with a doctor where you felt not heard, disrespected, or made uncomfortable?” (RQ1.Experiences). The second half of the interview asked them “If you had the power to change the experience youdescribed, what would you change?” (RQ2. Strategies). After each interview, the researchers made notes summarizingthe participants’ experiences and solutions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

      The interview design really stood out to me here. Starting with a question about times participants felt unheard or uncomfortable allows them to share their personal experiences in a way that feels validating. Following that up with, “What would you change?” is such a thoughtful way to shift the focus from frustration to actionable solutions. It’s empowering and gives participants a voice in improving care, rather than just reliving negative experiences. Plus, having two researchers there—one leading and one clarifying—shows a commitment to making sure nothing important is missed.

    1. Participants who perceived that they lacked control over their medical care also feared that itwould be taken away. One participant (demographics missing) described a transgenderfriend’s fear that asking his provider questions about hormone injection techniques mightlead them to think, “Oh, you don’t know how to inject. We should just take this away.”Given this context, participants highlighted the importance of shared decision-making duringwhich the provider discusses risks and benefits, and the patient has an opportunity to decidehow to proceed. A straight, intersex, white woman (TI1) said,

      This really shows how important shared decision-making is for building trust between patients and providers, especially for transgender and intersex patients. The fear that asking questions might lead to losing care speaks to a deeper issue of vulnerability and lack of control. It’s a reminder that providers need to create a safe, open space where patients feel comfortable speaking up and making informed choices about their care without fear of judgment or consequences.

    2. ach focus group, AA waspresent along with a note-taker and, in one instance, one additional facilitator. In each group,all non-participants identified as LGBTQI. Focus groups were held at the followinglocations: a transgender conference at a state university; a LGBTQI community center in asmall city; a transgender community center run by and for Latina transgender women; aprivate home in a large city; the office of an LGBTQI service organization; and an LGBTQIcommunity center in a large city. T

      The range of focus group locations, including a Latina transgender community center and LGBTQIA+ organizations, shows a thoughtful effort to create accessible and inclusive spaces for participants. By meeting people in familiar, community-centered environments, the study builds trust and ensures that voices from often marginalized subgroups are heard, ultimately strengthening the diversity and depth of its findings.

    3. is a LGBTQI-identified whitewoman who conducted the study as part of her medical school scholarly project. For th

      It’s valuable to highlight the lead author's positionality as both a member of the LGBTQI community and a medical student. Her identity may help establish trust and rapport with participants, particularly for a study involving marginalized communities. However, it’s also important to recognize potential for bias, as shared experiences can sometimes influence data interpretation.