ArticleInternational journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health2025
"It's a Big Ordeal": A Mixed Methods Study of the Experiences of non-HIV STI Testing Among Trans and Gender Diverse People.
Article in International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urological care for sexual and gender minorities: a narrative review toward equitable care.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- Transgender and gender diverse persons' sexually transmitted infection testing: a mixed methods study to understand primary care providers' training gaps and desires to promote sexual health equity.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) persons are disproportionately affected by sexually transmitted infection (STI) inequities. Research predominantly focuses on HIV disparities among transfeminine persons, whereas non-HIV STIs (e.g., chlamydia) and transmasculine and nonbinary persons are overlooked. Thus, we examined barriers and facilitators to uptake of non-HIV STI testing among TGD persons, inclusive of transmasculine, transfeminine, and nonbinary persons. Methods: This community-based explanatory sequential mixed-methods study utilized secondary quantitative data collected 2018-2019 from the Michigan Trans Health Survey (n = 528) analyzed utilizing logistic regression to test associations between social ecological hypothesized factors and non-HIV STI testing. Primary qualitative focus group data collected 2022 (n = 36 TGD participants) were analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach. Results: In multivariable analyses adjusting for age and race, reporting a very/somewhat inclusive primary care provider and ever experiencing sexual violence were statistically significantly positively associated with testing. Five themes were identified that illustrated the complexity of the testing process: 1) The "why" motivating testing; 2) "I've been vocal": The impact of individual agency on TGD peoples' testing practices; 3) "It's a big ordeal": Running the gauntlet of testing; 4) "Doesn't give me a hassle": Gratitude for bare minimum dignity when accessing care; and, 5) "Open, honest, and transparent": Increased testing access due to collaborative, judgment-free, and trustworthy patient-provider relationships. Conclusions: Findings inform future interventions to increase STI testing among TGD populations, such as enhanced trauma-informed, intersectional, and gender-affirming STI testing, across urgent care, sexual and reproductive healthcare, and primary care. Findings call for systems-level change to promote such care to increase STI testing and advance health equity among TGD populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.