Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals, comprised of those whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth, represent approximately 1.4 million people in the U.S., with a higher prevalence among those 18-24 years old. TGD individuals experience high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV), which leads to disproportionately negative mental and physical health outcomes for this population. As a result, there is a resounding need to connect TGD populations to health-promoting services, supports and resources. Med-Peds and Family Medicine clinics may be particularly well-positioned to support these efforts due to physicians' focus on transitional-aged youth and young adults under 30. METHODS: The current manuscript reports on processes and outcomes related to a quality improvement (QI) initiative that aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of implementing IPV screening within both a Med-Peds and a Family Medicine specialty clinic serving TGD populations in Los Angeles, CA. This QI initiative included screeners that capture IPV in cisgender/non-TGD populations (Humiliation, Afraid, Rape, Kick [HARK]) as well as in TGD populations specifically (IPV-T). We utilized a mixed-methods approach to both quantify and qualify responses to existing IPV screening as well as informal feedback from clinic "champions" in each clinic. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative findings from this QI initiative, featuring both general and TGD-specific IPV screening measures with 140 TGD individuals, elucidated several important processes that can support effective IPV screening and referral to supports and services. These include the importance of interdisciplinary teams, the utility of an iterative approach to screener roll-out, and the essential role of solidifying a referral process in these efforts. This project additionally shed light on the potential utility and challenges of implementing both general and TGD-specific IPV screening measures. Our pilot test did not support the necessity of a TGD-specific IPV screener for identifying and responding to IPV in this population, yet additional data is critical to generate more conclusive recommendations. CONCLUSION: We recommend larger-scale data collection efforts to evaluate the utility of integrating general and TGD-specific screeners into clinic workflows to ensure optimal health promotion for the TGD population in Med-Peds and Family Medicine clinics.