Transgender stigma: A critical scoping review of definitions, domains, and measures used in empirical research. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: King, Wesley M.; Hughto, Jaclyn M.W.; Operario, Don
• Is Part Of: Social science & medicine. Volume 250(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: United States -- Transgender -- Stigma -- Measurement; Social medicine -- Periodicals; Medical anthropology -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Psychology -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine sociale -- Périodiques; Anthropologie médicale -- Périodiques; Santé publique -- Périodiques; Psychologie -- Périodiques; Médecine -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112867
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0277-9536

Abstract

Abstract: Rationale: A growing body of transgender (trans) health research has explored the relationship between stigma and health; yet, studies have conceptualized and operationalized anti-trans stigma in multiple ways. Objective: This scoping review aims to critically analyze quantitative measures of anti-trans stigma in the U.S. using a socioecological framework. Method: W e organized and appraised measures from 126 included articles according to socioecological level: structural, interpersonal, or individual. Results: Of the identified articles, 36 measured anti-trans stigma at the structural level (i.e., institutional structures and policies), 102 measured anti-trans at the interpersonal level (i.e., community interactions), and 44 measured anti-trans stigma at the individual level (i.e., internalized or anticipated stigma). Definitions of anti-trans stigma varied substantially across articles. Most measures were adapted from measures developed for other populations (i.e., sexual minorities) and were not previously validated for trans samples. Conclusions: Studies analyzing anti-trans stigma should concretely define anti-trans stigma. There is a need to develop measures of anti-trans stigma at all socioecological levels informed by the lived experiences of trans people. Highlights: First quantitative review of anti-trans stigma measures in the U.S. Most studies measured interpersonal stigma; few measured structural stigma. Only two of the 85 studies that adapted measures reported measurement validity. Measures and definitions often conflated sexual orientation and gender identity. Development of new measures should be grounded in trans-lived experiences of stigma.