Disparities in pain management among transgender patients presenting to the emergency department for abdominal pain.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1111/acem.15027
Kellyn Engstrom, Fernanda Bellolio, Molly Moore Jeffery, Sara C Sutherland, Kayla P Carpenter, Gia Jackson, Kristin Cole, Victor Chedid, Caroline J Davidge-Pitts, Kharmene L Sunga, Cesar Gonzalez, Caitlin S Brown
{"title":"Disparities in pain management among transgender patients presenting to the emergency department for abdominal pain.","authors":"Kellyn Engstrom, Fernanda Bellolio, Molly Moore Jeffery, Sara C Sutherland, Kayla P Carpenter, Gia Jackson, Kristin Cole, Victor Chedid, Caroline J Davidge-Pitts, Kharmene L Sunga, Cesar Gonzalez, Caitlin S Brown","doi":"10.1111/acem.15027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20-32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4-7] vs. 6 [4-7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non-TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).

Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.

Results: We identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20-32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4-7] vs. 6 [4-7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non-TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: There was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
因腹痛到急诊科就诊的变性患者在疼痛处理方面的差异。
目的:变性者和性别多元化者(TGD)的性别认同或性别表达方式与出生时的性别不同。他们是未得到充分服务的人群,在医疗保健方面遭受着不公平待遇。我们的主要目的是确定在急诊科(ED)就诊的腹痛患者中,TGD 与顺性别女同性恋/男同性恋/双性恋/同性恋(LGBQ)或异性恋之间是否存在治疗差异:回顾性观察队列研究,对象为2018年至2022年期间以腹痛为主诉到医疗系统内21家急诊科就诊的年龄≥12岁的患者。TGD患者分别与同性别的LGBQ女性和男性以及同性别的异性恋女性和男性进行了1:1:1:1匹配。倾向得分匹配协变量包括年龄、ED部位、精神健康史和胃肠道病史。主要结果是抵达后 60 分钟内的疼痛评估。次要结果是在急诊室使用的镇痛药:我们确定了 300 名 TGD 患者,其中 300 名 TGD 患者已成功配对,患者总数为 1300 人。中位(IQR)年龄为 25(20-32)岁,大多数患者在社区急诊室接受治疗(58.2%)。两组患者在到达急诊室后 60 分钟内的疼痛评估结果无差异(59.0% 的 TGD 患者对 63.2% 的非 TGD 患者,P = 0.19)。组间疼痛评估次数(中位数[IQR] 2 [1-3] vs. 2 [1-4],p = 0.31)或疼痛严重程度(5.5 [4-7] vs. 6 [4-7],p = 0.11)无差异。与非 TGD 患者相比,TGD 患者更有可能接受非甾体抗炎药治疗(32.0% vs. 24.9%,p = 0.015),而接受阿片类药物治疗的可能性较低(24.7% vs. 36.9%,p = 0.015):无论性别认同或性取向如何,疼痛评估的频率没有差异。与 TGD 和同性别女性相比,更多的同性别男性因疼痛而接受阿片类药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Can first impressions predict patient outcomes? Epidemiology of sepsis presentations and management among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023. Ruling out pulmonary embolism safely: Standardized reporting of the failure rate. Opening invisible wounds. Failure rate of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for adults 35 years or younger: Findings from the RIETE Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1